Physical activity, sedentary behaviors and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a population-based cross-sectional study in Tianjin, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Physical activity in a nonpregnant state or before pregnancy reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes and is also associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, it is uncertain whether physical activity during pregnancy reduces the risk of GDM. DESIGN AND METHODS: Using an established universal screening system in Tianjin, China, we prospectively recruited 11 450 pregnant women within the 12th gestational week from 2010 to 2012. These women underwent a 50-g 1-h glucose challenge test (GCT) at 24-28 weeks of gestation and a 75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test if GCT glucose ≥7.8mmol/L. GDM was defined according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group's criteria. Self-reported physical activity in the last month was collected at GCT time using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: GDM developed in 7.3% (n=840) of the women. Women with GDM were less likely to be engaged in moderate-to-high physical activity during pregnancy than those without (79.8% vs 81.6%, P=0.191). Moderate-to-high physical activity during pregnancy was associated with decreased risk of GDM (multivariable odds ratio (OR): 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.97). Sitting at home for 2-4h per day and >4h per day were associated with significantly increased risk of GDM (multivariable OR of sitting time for 2-4h vs <2h: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.18-2.15; OR of sitting time for >4h vs <2h: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22-2.43). CONCLUSIONS: Increased physical activity during pregnancy was associated with reduced GDM risk, whereas sedentary lifestyle was associated with increased GDM risk among Chinese pregnant women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".