MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Gestational Weight Gain is associated with Postpartum Weight Retention and Infant Anthropometrics

2012· article· en· W3173357966 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fatheema Begum, Ian Colman, Linda J. McCargar, Rhonda C. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsWeight gainMedicineObstetricsOverweightPregnancyAnthropometryBirth weightGestational ageGestationBody mass indexObesityBody weightInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal gestational weight gain is essential for healthy pregnancy outcomes. The study objective is to describe the association between gestational weight gain and early postpartum weight retention, and infant anthropometrics at birth and 3 months. Pregnant women (n=600) were followed up 2–3 times during pregnancy and at 3 months postpartum. Data on maternal weight at pre‐pregnancy, during pregnancy and postpartum were collected. Women were categorized as, “Below”, “Met” or “Above” based on the 2010 Gestational Weight Gain Guidelines. Infant birthweight and weight and length at 3 months were available. Age and sex specific z‐scores were calculated for birthweight and infant anthropometrics at 3 months. Data were analysed using regression. Over 55% women gained above recommended guidelines. Overweight (OR = 5.5, p <0.001) and obese (OR = 6.5, p <0.001) women were more likely to gain excess weight when compared to normal weight women. In comparison to adequate gestational weight gain, excessive weight gain was associated with higher postpartum weight retention (ß = −3.03, p <0.001), birthweight z‐scores (ß = 0.34, p <0.01), infant weight for age z‐score (ß = 0.40, p <0.01), and infant BMI z‐score (ß = 0.55, p <0.05). Excessive gestational weight gain promotes obesity in mothers and higher weights in infants. Interventions that optimize weight gain may significantly affect the long‐term health of women and children. Grant Funding Source : Alberta Innovates ‐ Health Solutions

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→