Review: dietary restriction, with or without aerobic exercise, promotes weight loss in postpartum womenCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A R Amorim Correspondence to: Dr A R Amorim, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; AAR@ipm.regionh.dk Are diet and/or exercise effective for weight reduction in postpartum women? ### Data sources: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trial Register (including searches of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, 30 journals, and proceedings of major conferences) (September 2006), LILACS (2006), reference lists, and experts. ### Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated interventions involving diet (advice, counselling, or prescription of a calorie-restricted diet) and/or exercise (counselling or structured programmes) in postpartum women (⩽12 mo after birth of a healthy singleton term infant) ⩾18 years of age who were overweight, obese, or had gained excessive weight during pregnancy. Excluded were studies involving women who were underweight before pregnancy, exercise interventions for pelvic or back pain or urinary incontinence, or interventions combined with medication. 6 RCTs (n = 245) met the selection criteria; duration of the intervention ranged from 11 days to 11 …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".