MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912913175 · doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12512

Association of a plant‐based dietary pattern in relation to gestational diabetes mellitus

2019· article· en· W2912913175 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Zamani, Alireza Milajerdi, Hatav Ghasemi Tehrani, Nick Bellissimo, Neil R. Brett, Leila Azadbakht

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition & Dietetics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestational diabetesMedicineOffspringDiabetes mellitusLower riskPregnancyInternal medicineObstetricsGestationEndocrinologyBiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), which has adverse effects on mothers and their offspring, is increasing worldwide. The role of a plant-based dietary pattern as a determinant of GDM is not well understood. Therefore, we examined the association between plant-based dietary patterns and the risk of GDM. METHODS: We enrolled 460 pregnant women in this case-control study, of them 200 were cases and 260 were controls. Dietary intake of participants was evaluated using three 24-hour dietary records. Adherence to the plant-based dietary patterns was scored using three indices of the overall plant-based dietary index (PDI), healthy plant-based diet (hPDI) and unhealthy plant-based diet index (uPDI). The risk of GDM was compared across tertiles of PDI, hPDI and uPDI. RESULTS: After multivariable adjustment, we demonstrated that the high PDI score was inversely associated with risk of GDM (OR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.28-0.78, P = 0.004), but there was no significant association between hPDI (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.64-1.65, P = 0.884) or uPDI (OR = 1.65; 95% CI: 0.98-2.78, P = 0.06) and GDM risk. CONCLUSIONS: We found that following an overall plant-based diet was associated with lower risk of GDM. Future studies are warranted with longitudinal designs to confirm these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition & DieteticsSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207