Effectiveness of multimodal nutrition interventions during pregnancy to achieve 2009 Institute of Medicine gestational weight gain guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a revision to its 1990 recommendations on gestational weight gain (GWG). The objective of this review is to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in achieving recommended GWG. METHODS: (2012 through 2019), Web of Science (2012 to 6 February 2017), Embase (2016 through 2019), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012 through 2019). Literature published before January 2012 was identified from a published systematic review. We included controlled trials conducted in the U.S. or Canada among generally healthy pregnant women that compared nutrition interventions with or without exercise to controls (e.g., usual care) and reported total GWG or rate of GWG based on the 2009 IOM GWG guidelines. Two independent investigators conducted screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted when data were sufficient. RESULTS: =86.3%). Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in achieving IOM's total GWG or any secondary outcome (e.g., preterm birth or small/large for gestational age) between groups. Most studies were assessed as having some or high ROB in at least two domains. CONCLUSION: Multimodal nutrition interventions designed to meet the 2009 IOM's GWG targets may decrease the rate of GWG over the second and third trimesters but may not decrease total GWG.Key messagesExcessive gestational weight gain is associated with higher risk of many adverse maternal and fetal outcomes and represents a public health concern in the United States and Canada.Nutrition interventions designed to meet the 2009 IOM GWG guidelines may decrease the rates of GWG over the second and third trimesters but may not be effective at reducing total GWG.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".