Obesity in pregnancy: a comparison of four national guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity in pregnancy has become one of the most important challenges in obstetrical care given its prevalence and potential adverse impact on both mother and fetus. The primary objective of this descriptive review is to identify common themes and distinctions within the current recommendations for maternal obesity in the most updated version of four published national guidelines. METHODS: We reviewed the following guidelines for obesity in pregnancy: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2015, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RANZCOG) 2013, Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (RCOG) 2010, and Society of Obstetrics and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) 2010. RESULTS: or more, and weight gain recommendations were in line with the Institute of Medicine guidelines. Counseling patients regarding the specific maternal and fetal complications in pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum which are associated with obesity was consistently emphasized. Most guidelines recommended early screening for gestational diabetes, however, specific details were not provided. All guidelines stressed the importance of available resources in clinics and the operating room specific to the obese population. Disparities were found regarding recommendations for high-dose folic acid, vitamin D supplementation, and low-dose aspirin. Thromboprophylaxis is a matter of debate, with most guidelines recommending use on an individual patient basis. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the guidelines emphasized the importance of counseling women regarding the risks associated with obesity in pregnancy, and stressed the necessity of screening for these adverse outcomes. Initiatives to develop common terminology and reporting of outcomes in women's health are important for the development of cohesive and uniform recommendations for patient care. Disparities existed with respect to management strategies and where the further research and systematic reviews should be targeted, to allow clinicians to provide an appropriate obstetrical care pathway for obese 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".