MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exercise And Nutrition Patterns Of Pregnant Women Self-Selecting For Participation In A Lifestyle Intervention

2020· article· en· W3041711699 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karishma Hosein, Taniya S. Nagpal, Roberta Bgeginski, Harry Prapavessis, Barbra de Vrijer, Christina Campbell, Stephanie Paplinskie, Mollie Manley, Michelle F. Mottola

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePedometerPregnancyBody mass indexCaloriePhysical therapyPopulationGestationIntervention (counseling)NutritionistPhysical activityGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise and healthy eating are integral parts of a comprehensive healthy lifestyle intervention during pregnancy. Women who volunteer to participate in such an intervention in early to mid-pregnancy may already be practicing healthy lifestyle habits such as walking 10,000 steps/day (active), and consuming 1800-2252 kilocalories/day (kcal), whereas most pregnant woman walk on average 3000-7000 steps/day (sedentary to low active) and consume 1882-2789 kcal/day. As such, intervention participants may not be representative of the general population of pregnant women, especially relating to exercise. PURPOSE: To assess the baseline exercise and nutrition patterns of pregnant women who enrol in a healthy lifestyle intervention in London, Canada. METHODS: Pregnant women who had self-selected to participate in a nutrition and exercise intervention completed a baseline (12-18 weeks gestation) 3-day step count log and 3-day food intake record (3dFR). Step counts were recorded over 3 consecutive days using a hip-worn pedometer or a wrist-worn activity tracker, and an average was calculated. The 3dFR was completed over the same 3 consecutive days and was analyzed for average energy intake (kcal) using Nutritionist Pro (NP; Axxya Systems). Measured height and self-reported pre-pregnancy weight were used to calculate pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). Gestational age at study entry and maternal age were also collected. RESULTS: Ninety-seven pregnant women chose to participate in a healthy lifestyle intervention study and completed both the 3-day step count log and 3dFR at baseline. At study entry, mean daily steps were 7399±2741 (low to above normal range) and energy intake was 2305±634 kcal/day (within to above normal range). Pre-pregnancy BMI was 26.2±5 kg/m2 (overweight), gestational age was 15±3 weeks, and maternal age was 32±4 years. CONCLUSION: Many pregnant women who self-select to participate in a lifestyle intervention in early to mid-pregnancy may already have healthy patterns of exercise and to a lesser extent nutrition. To achieve a more representative sample of pregnant women, interventions could be performed in a clinical setting, which may allow for better identification of effective behaviour change strategies to promote and maintain healthy exercise and nutrition patterns during pregnancy.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→