Knowledge about the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease is independently associated with variation in diet quality during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Environmental factors affecting development through embryogenesis, pregnancy, and infancy impact health through all subsequent stages of life. Known as the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) hypothesis, this concept is widely accepted among health and social scientists. However, it is unclear whether DOHaD‐based ideas are reaching the general public and/or influencing behaviour. This study thus investigated whether and under what circumstances pregnant people in Canada are familiar with DOHaD, and if DOHaD familiarity relates to eating behaviour. Survey responses from pregnant people from Hamilton, Canada, were used to assess respondents' knowledge of DOHaD (hereafter, DOHaD KNOWLEDGE ) compared with their knowledge of more general pregnancy health recommendations (Pregnancy Guideline KNOWLEDGE ). The survey also characterized respondents' pregnancy diet quality and sociodemographic profiles. We fit two multiple, linear, mixed regression models to the data, one with DOHaD KNOWLEDGE score as the dependent variable and the other with diet quality score as the dependent. In both models, responses were clustered by respondents' neighbourhoods. Complete, internally consistent responses were available for 330 study‐eligible respondents. Relative to Pregnancy Guideline KNOWLEDGE , respondents had lower, more variable DOHaD KNOWLEDGE scores. Additionally, higher DOHaD KNOWLEDGE was associated with higher socio‐economic position, older age, and lower parity, independent of Pregnancy Guideline KNOWLEDGE . Diet quality during pregnancy was positively associated with DOHaD KNOWLEDGE , adjusting for sociodemographic factors. A subset of relatively high socio‐economic position respondents was familiar with DOHaD. Greater familiarity with DOHaD was associated with better pregnancy diet quality, hinting that translating DOHaD knowledge to pregnant people may motivate improved pregnancy nutrition and thus later‐life health for developing babies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".