MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885055813 · doi:10.1089/jwh.2017.6892

Body Weight Status and Sleep Disturbances During Pregnancy: Does Adherence to Gestational Weight Gain Guidelines Matter?

2018· article· en· W2885055813 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin C. Guinhouya, M. Bisson, Lise Dubois, Frédéric Sériès, John Kimoff, William D. Fraser, Isabelle Marc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women s Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineOverweightBody mass indexPregnancyPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexWeight gainObstetricsOdds ratioObesityGestationGynecologyInternal medicineBody weightSleep qualityInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To determine the effect of preconception body mass index (BMI) and/or gestational weight gain (GWG) on the occurrence of sleep disorders over the whole pregnancy. METHODS: A sample of 2,366 pregnant women, recruited in their 1st trimester (TM), was evaluated until delivery for their sleeping characteristics, using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Mixed or multinomial logistic modeling was applied, as appropriate. RESULTS: When compared with TM 1, PSQI score was the lowest at TM 2 (β = -1.03; 95% CI: -1.17 to -0.89) and highest in TM 3 (β = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.10-0.45). Obese (β = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.17-0.78) and overweight women (β = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.00-0.48) exhibited an overall greater PSQI than normal-weight women over the whole pregnancy. When sociodemographic factors were accounted for, the effect size was reduced by 25% among obese women (β = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.06-0.68), but was no more not significant in overweight women (β = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.17 to 0.30). Both obese and overweight women still exhibited, although at a lower extend, a greater PSQI than normal-weight women. Further adjustment for GWG had no effect on these observations. Obese women almost had a four-fold increased risk (OR = 3.89; 95% CI: 2.50-6.06) of being snorers in the three TMs. While GWG had only a minor effect (aOR = 3.83; 95% CI: 2.43-6.03), sociodemographic factors increased the odds of being habitual snorer (aOR = 4.04; 95% CI: 2.57-6.35). CONCLUSIONS: High prepregnancy BMI together with sociodemographic correlates appear as the most critical for sleep disturbances across pregnancy. GWG is of marginal importance, especially regarding snoring. These findings confirm the importance of considering the initial body weight status of women in tailoring sleep hygiene advises irrespective of the recommendations for weight gain during pregnancy. The results also underscore the need to providing as early as possible during a pregnancy, supportive tools to ethnic minorities, multiparous, and women from deprived socioeconomic neighborhoods.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women s HealthSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207