Gestational Diabetes in Twin Versus Singleton Pregnancies With Normal Weight or Overweight Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes might be more common in twin versus singleton pregnancies, yet the reasons for this are unclear. We evaluated the extent to which this relationship is explained by higher mid-pregnancy weight gain within normal weight and overweight pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) strata. METHODS: We analyzed serial weights and glucose screening and diagnostic data abstracted from medical charts for twin (n = 1397) and singleton (n = 3117) pregnancies with normal or overweight pre-pregnancy BMI delivered from 1998 to 2013 at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pennsylvania. We used causal mediation analyses to estimate the total effect of twin versus singleton pregnancy on gestational diabetes, as well as those mediated (natural indirect effect) and not mediated (natural and controlled direct effects) by pathways involving mid-pregnancy weight gain. RESULTS: Odds of gestational diabetes were higher among twin pregnancies [odds ratios (ORs) for total effect = 2.83 (95% CI = 1.54, 5.19) for normal weight and 2.09 (95% CI = 1.16, 3.75) for overweight pre pregnancy BMI], yet there was limited evidence that this relationship was mediated by mid-pregnancy weight gain [ORs for natural indirect effect = 1.21 (95% CI = 0.90, 1.24) for normal weight and 1.06 (95% CI = 0.92, 1.21) for overweight pre-pregnancy BMI] and more evidence of mediation via other pathways [ORs for natural direct effect = 2.34 (95% CI = 1.24, 4.40) for normal weight and 1.97 (95% CI = 1.08, 3.60) for overweight pre-pregnancy BMI]. CONCLUSIONS: While twin pregnancies with normal weight or overweight pre-pregnancy BMI experienced higher odds of gestational diabetes versus singletons, most of this effect was explained by pathways not involving mid-pregnancy weight gain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".