Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of rising weight in reproducing women has potential for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, both short and long term. The purpose of the project was to identify the extent of potential implications resulting from maintaining a body mass index larger than 25 throughout a pregnancy. Select authors have conducted quantitative, retrospective cohort studies by requesting participants to complete a questionnaire during pregnancy providing information on variables of social determinants of health with a control study of woman with a BMI under 25 and excluding mothers without a recorded BMI in antenatal records and mothers with pre-existing diabetes. Research resulted in overarching implications for both maternal and fetal well-being with added potential burden on the health care system. Neonate’s born under influence of a maternal BMI larger than 25 risk complications including preterm birth, congenital anomalies, fetal macrosomia, and death. Mothers are at increased risk for preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, postpartum hemorrhage, caesarian section and require more healthcare services. Continued longitudinal studies may provide greater insight into the life course trajectories of children born under such circumstances, and offer interventions appropriate to aid consequences of weight implications on pregnancy outcomes. Furthermore, additional studies on appropriate and safe interventions throughout the pregnancy may minimize potential risks on maternal and fetal well-being. This discussion is designed to explain the gravity of weight juxtaposed with pregnancy, and provide strategies aimed at optimizing health outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".