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 OpenAlexaff
Regan L Bailey, Susan Pac, Victor L. Fulgoni, Kathleen Reidy

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicFluoride Effects and RemovalFrench-language works237,207