Inadequate Dietary Intakes: Among Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Eating behaviours were assessed among pregnant women in a mid-sized Canadian city. METHODS: As part of the Prenatal Health Project, we interviewed 2313 pregnant women in London, Ontario. Subjects also completed a food frequency questionnaire. Recruitment took place in ultrasound clinics at 10 to 22 weeks of gestation. The main outcome measures were number of daily servings for each food group, measured against the minimum number recommended by the 2007 Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide (CFG), the proportion of women consuming the recommended number of servings for each and all of the four food groups, and factors associated with adequate consumption. We also determined the number of servings of "other foods." Analysis included descriptive statistics and logistic regression, all at p<0.05. RESULTS: A total of 3.5% of women consumed the recommended number of servings for all four food groups; 15.3% did not consume the minimum number of servings of foods for any of the four food groups. Women for whom this was their first pregnancy were less likely to consume the recommended number of servings from all four food groups (odds ratio=0.41; confidence interval=0.23, 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Very few pregnant women consumed food group servings consistent with the 2007 recommendations. Strategies to improve dietary behaviours must focus on the establishment of healthy eating behaviours among women of reproductive age.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".