MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220681952 · doi:10.2147/clep.s352889

Interpregnancy Weight Change Among Mothers of a Child with a Major Congenital Anomaly: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4220681952 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Epidemiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationThe Scarborough HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDanishCohort studyWeight changeWeight gainCohortClimbBirth weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The mother of an infant with a major congenital anomaly is at a higher risk of premature cardiometabolic disease, possibly from chronic caregiver stress and distraction from self-care, including maintaining a healthy lifestyle and body weight. Objective: To compare the interpregnancy weight gain in women whose first infant had a major congenital anomaly vs those without an affected child. Methods: Multivariable linear regression compared women whose infant had an anomaly vs those whose infant did not, adjusting for interpregnancy time interval, demographics, smoking and health status at the first pregnancy. Results: Of the 199,536 women who had two consecutive singleton births, 4035 (2.0%) had a child with an anomaly at the first birth. The mean (SD) maternal BMI at the start of the first pregnancy was 24.1 (4.7) and 23.7 (4.4) kg/m 2 in women with, and without, an anomaly-affected newborn. By the start of the second pregnancy, 3 years later, they had gained a mean (SD) of 2.2 (5.5) and 1.8 (5.2) kg, respectively – an adjusted absolute higher gain of 0.26 kg (95% CI 0.10 to 0.42) in women with an anomaly-affected first-born infant compared to those with an unaffected pregnancy. The adjusted interpregnancy weight gain difference was greatest in women whose first-born infant had a multi-organ anomaly at 0.59 kg (95% CI 0.02 to 1.16). The adjusted odds ratio of moving from a normal BMI category of 18.5– 24.9 kg/m 2 in the first pregnancy, to an overweight or obese BMI category of 25+ kg/m 2 in the second, was 1.18 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.32) comparing mothers with vs without an anomaly-affected child in the first pregnancy. Conclusion: Mothers of an infant with a major congenital anomaly have a modestly higher interpregnancy weight gain and tend to climb to a higher BMI category. The long-term implications of this greater weight trajectory require further study. Keywords: weight gain, congenital anomaly, inter-pregnancy, body mass index

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)0.002
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EpidemiologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207