Dietary intakes of women with Type 1 diabetes before and during pregnancy: a pre‐specified secondary subgroup analysis among CONCEPTT participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the dietary intakes of women with Type 1 diabetes before and during pregnancy. METHODS: This was a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CONCEPTT involving 63 women planning pregnancy and 93 pregnant women from 14 sites in England, Scotland and Ireland. Two hundred and forty-six 3-day food diaries (104 planning pregnancy, 142 pregnant) were matched to data source and food reference codes, and analysed using dietary software. Participants were informed that food diaries would be de-identified and used only for research purposes. RESULTS: Mean (sd) daily energy intake was 1588 (346) kcal and 1673 (384) kcal in women planning pregnancy and pregnant women respectively. Total carbohydrate intake was consistent with dietary guideline recommendations [180 (52) g planning pregnancy, 198 (54) g pregnant], but non-recommended sources (e.g. sugars, preserves, confectionery, biscuits, cakes) contributed to 46% of total daily carbohydrate intake. Fat consumption exceeded guideline recommendations [70 (21) g planning pregnancy, 72 (21) g pregnant]. Fibre [15.5 (5.3) g planning pregnancy, 15.4 (5.1) g pregnant], fruit and vegetable intakes [3.5 (2.2) and 3.1 (1.8) serves/day] were inadequate. Twelve women planning pregnancy (19%) and 24 pregnant women (26%) did not meet micronutrient requirements. CONCLUSIONS: The diets of pregnant women from England, Scotland and Ireland are characterized by high fat, low fibre and poor-quality carbohydrate intakes. Fruit and vegetable consumption is inadequate, with one in four women at risk of micronutrient deficiencies. Further research is needed to optimize maternal nutrition for glycaemic control and for maternal and offspring health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".