MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281748530 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1748844

Impact of Gestational Weight Gain Recommendations for Obese Women on Neonatal Morbidity

2022· article· en· W4281748530 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurence Bujold, François Audibert, Nils Chaillet

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight gainObstetricsPregnancyBody mass indexOdds ratioConfidence intervalGestational ageObesityPediatricsInternal medicineBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOGs) developed gestational weight gain guidelines to minimize the risks associated with obesity during pregnancy. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that current recommendations should be revised for obese women. OBJECTIVE: ) on neonatal and maternal outcomes in Quebec. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the QUARISMA trial was performed including obese women who delivered a full-term singleton in cephalic presentation from 2008 to 2011 in Quebec. Outcomes assessed were composite risks of major neonatal and maternal complications, minor neonatal and maternal complications, as well as obstetrical interventions. Outcomes were compared between weight gain recommendations (reference group) and three weight gain/loss categories using logistic regressions. In second analysis, obese women were stratified by obesity class. RESULTS: Among the 16,808 eligible obese women, 605 lost weight during pregnancy, 2,665 gained between 0 and 4.9 kg, 4,355 gained weight within the recommendations (5-9.09 kg), and 9,183 gained at least 9.1 kg. Results showed a significant reduction in major neonatal morbidity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51-0.94), minor maternal morbidity (aOR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.67-0.93), and assisted vaginal delivery (aOR = 0.82, 95%CI = 0.68-0.99) among women who gained 0 to 4.9 kg compared with the reference group. Cesarean delivery and preeclampsia/eclampsia were significantly reduced with weight loss (aOR = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.64-0.89 and 0.58, 95%CI = 0.42-0.78) compared with the reference group. Weight gain above recommendations was associated with an increased risk of minor neonatal morbidity, major and minor maternal morbidity, as well as cesarean delivery. CONCLUSION: Compared with a weight gain within the recommendations, a gestational weight gain/loss of less than 5 kg in obese women is associated with a reduced risk of major neonatal morbidity, minor maternal morbidity, preeclampsia/eclampsia, cesarean delivery, and assisted vaginal delivery. Guidelines on gestational weight gain for obese women should be updated. KEY POINTS: · Gestational weight gain/loss of less than 5 kg reduces the risk of perinatal complications.. · As suggested by ACOG recommendations, guidelines for obese women should be updated.. · Recommendations stratified by obesity class should be included in revised guidelines..

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207