MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034198539 · doi:10.2337/db20-1244-p

1244-P: Impact of Maternal Fasting Glucose in Pregnancy on Excess Weight at Preschool Age in the Offspring

2020· article· en· W3034198539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Padma Kaul, Anamaria Savu, Linn E. Moore, Roseanne O. Yeung, Edmond A. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringOverweightMedicinePregnancyObesityOdds ratioObstetricsDiabetes mellitusChildhood obesityBirth weightInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To examine the association between elevated maternal fasting plasma glucose (FPG) during pregnancy and obesity in the offspring. Methods: For women without pre-existing diabetes in 2 zones in Alberta, Canada with births between 2005 - 2013, maternal data were linked to offspring’s birth registry and preschool immunization records (w/height, weight) between 2009-2017. A 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) followed by a 75-g OGTT was used to diagnose GDM. Pregnancies were grouped as follows: 1) GCT negative; 2) OGTT negative; 3) elevated FPG on the OGTT; and 4) elevated 1-hour and/or 2-hour OGTT only. WHO criteria were used to identify children who were overweight, obese, or extremely obese. Results: Of 79,156 pregnancies, 80.3% were GCT negative, 14.7% were OGTT negative, 1.3% had elevated FPG, and 3.7% had elevated post-load glucose only. Both LGA and pre-school obesity rates were highest in pregnancies with abnormal FPG (Figure). Relative to children of GCT negative pregnancies, children of pregnancies with elevated maternal FPG had adjusted odds ratio (aOR, 95% CI) 3.0, (2.6-3.6) for LGA; and aOR 1.3 (1.1 - 1.6) for overweight, aOR 2.4 (1.9 - 3.0) for obesity, aOR 3.5 (2.7 - 4.7) for extreme obesity at preschool age. Conclusion: The effect of elevated maternal FPG in pregnancy on offspring weight extends to early childhood. These children may be candidates for early pediatric weight and health interventions. Disclosure P. Kaul: None. A. Savu: None. L.E. Moore: None. R.O. Yeung: Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk Inc. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Merck & Co., Inc. E.A. Ryan: None. Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research; University Hospital Foundation

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)0.000
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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207