MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951548922 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz048.fs08-01-19

Total Usual Dietary Intakes of Pregnant Women in the United States, 2001-2014 (FS08-01-19)

2019· article· en· W2951548922 on OpenAlex
Regan L Bailey, Susan Pac, Victor L. Fulgoni, Kathleen Reidy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFluoride Effects and Removal
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNiacinDietary Reference IntakePregnancyRiboflavinEnvironmental healthNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyMicronutrientVitaminVitamin B12Animal sciencePhysiologyNutrientFood sciencePopulationEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrition during pregnancy is a critical dimension not only for women’s heath, but also for the offspring’s lifelong health. Very limited national data exist on the usual dietary intakes of pregnant women. The objective of this study was to estimate total usual nutrient intakes (from foods and dietary supplements) of pregnant women in the U.S. Cross-sectional analysis of a nationally-representative sample of pregnant U.S. women, ages 20-40 years (n = 1,003) from NHANES 2001-2014. Total usual dietary intakes were estimated using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) method to adjust 2, 24-hour dietary recalls for within-person variation. Adherence with the Dietary Reference Intakes were used to assess the proportion at risk of inadequacy by the Estimated Average Requirement (%< EAR), assumed to be adequate by the Adequate Intake (% >AI), and at risk of excess by the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (% >UL). About 70% of pregnant women use a dietary supplement. Less than 5% of pregnant women have usual diets that are at risk for inadequate intakes of riboflavin (3%), niacin (1%), vitamin B12 (1%), iron (2%), phosphorus (< 0.5%), and selenium (< 0.5%). More pregnant women have usual intakes < EAR for vitamins A (15%), B6 (11%), folate (16%), C (11%), D (46%), E (43%), and minerals including copper (5%), calcium (13%), magnesium (47%) and zinc (11%). Few pregnant females have usual intakes >AI for potassium (2%) and choline (8%), whereas only 48% have vitamin K intakes >AI. The majority of pregnant women (95%) exceed the UL for sodium, while folic acid (34%), iron (28%), calcium (3%), and zinc (7%) were also of concern for intakes >UL. Many U.S. pregnant women (>10% < EAR or < 10% >AI) do not consume enough of key nutrients during pregnancy specifically vitamins A, C, D, E, K, B6, folate, and choline and minerals including potassium, calcium, magnesium, and zinc, while almost all are at risk of excessive consumption of sodium, and many at risk of excessive consumption of folic acid and iron. Improved dietary guidance to help pregnant women meet and not exceed dietary recommendations is warranted. Nestle Nutrition.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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