Pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and macrosomia in a Canadian birth cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare demographic characteristics and maternal, fetal, neonatal, and pregnancy outcomes of term macrosomic infants of obese and non-obese mothers. METHODS: A sample of 1996 singleton, term deliveries was drawn from the All Our Babies Cohort, a prospective, community-based pregnancy cohort. Maternal self-reported socio-demographic and anthropometric information was linked to the clinical data on pregnancy and birth events abstracted from electronic health records. Demographic, obstetrical characteristics and maternal, fetal, neonatal, and pregnancy outcomes of macrosomic infants in obese, overweight, and normal weight women were compared. Multinomial regression analysis assessed the risk factors of macrosomia in primiparous and multiparous women stratified by maternal pre-pregnancy BMI, controlling for confounding variables. RESULTS: Macrosomia affected 10% of pregnancies in the study. Mothers whose infants were macrosomic were more likely to be Caucasian, obese, have had previous deliveries, undergo induction of labour and delivery by emergency C-section, particularly for labour abnormalities. Macrosomic infants were more likely to be delivered postdates, have meconium stained liquor and require resuscitation at birth. There were no significant differences in birth and neonatal outcomes of macrosomic pregnancies between obese, overweight and normal weight women. Pre-pregnancy BMI and gestational age at delivery were risk factors for macrosomia in all women. Ethnicity and history of delivery of a macrosomic infant were additional independent risk factors in multiparas. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity in pregnancy increases the risk of delivery of a macrosomic infant in both primiparous and multiparous women. The maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes of macrosomic pregnancies are similar in obese and normal weight 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 | 0.001 | 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".