MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883548935 · doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2018-016

Changes in Energy Metabolism from Prepregnancy to Postpartum: A Case Report

2018· article· en· W2883548935 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Leticia C.R. Pereira, Sarah A. Elliott, Linda J. McCargar, Rhonda C. Bell, Carla M. Prado

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingPregnancyPostpartum periodObstetricsEnergy metabolismDoubly labeled waterInternal medicinePediatricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Energy metabolism is at the core of maintaining healthy body weights. Likewise, the assessment of energy needs is essential for providing adequate dietary advice. We explored differences in energy metabolism of a primigravid woman (age: 30 years) at 1 month prepregnancy ("baseline"), during pregnancy (33 weeks), and at 3 and 9 months postpartum. Measured versus estimated energy expenditure were compared using equations commonly used in clinical practice. METHODS: Energy metabolism was measured using a state-of-the-art whole body calorimetry unit (WBCU). Body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), energy intake (3-day food records), physical activity (Baecke questionnaire), and breastmilk volume/breastfeeding energy expenditure (24-hours of infant test-retest weighing) were assessed. RESULTS: This case report is the first to assess energy expenditure in 3 different stages of a woman's life (prepregnancy, pregnancy, and postpartum) using WBCU. We noticed that weight and energy needs returned to prepregnancy values at 9 months postpartum, although a pattern of altered body composition emerged (higher fat/lean ratio) without changes in physical activity and energy intake. For this woman, current recommendations for energy overestimated actual needs by 350 kcal/day (9 months postpartum). CONCLUSION: It is likely that more accurate approaches are needed to estimate energy needs during and postpregnancy, with targeted interventions to optimize body composition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207