Nutrition in Pregnancy: A Comparative Review of Major Guidelines
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance Nutrition patterns in pregnancy play a decisive role in the well-being of the mother and the fetus. Objective The aim of this review was to summarize and compare guidelines and recommendations on nutrition in pregnancy. Evidence Acquisition A descriptive review of major guidelines on antenatal nutrition was conducted, including the most recently published guidelines, namely, by the Australian Government Department of Health (2018); the Canadian Nutrition Working Group and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (2016); the World Health Organization (2016); the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland (2016); the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2015); the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2014); and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2008). Results There is almost universal agreement regarding macronutrient requirements during pregnancy. The WHO, FIGO, and the NICE guidelines make no recommendation on fluid intake. Almost all guidelines state that weight gain during pregnancy should be closely monitored. Folic acid supplementation is universally recommended from the preconception period, but there are controversies regarding other vitamins' supplementation. Multiple micronutrient supplementation could be an option in specific settings according only to the FIGO. Probiotics are not routinely recommended in pregnancy. Conclusions There is wide agreement among the reviewed guidelines regarding nutrition in pregnancy, but still there are controversies. Evaluation and classification of influential guidelines can be beneficial for establishing a universal consensus on nutrition during pregnancy, in order to achieve more favorable perinatal outcomes. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians Learning Objectives After participating in this activity, the learner should be better able to identify all aspects of recommended macronutrients intake during pregnancy; assess the need for vitamin supplementation in pregnancy; and describe potential micronutrient supplementation in the antenatal period, in order to achieve a favorable perinatal outcome.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it