The effect of diet quality on the risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the effect of diet quality on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Methods: This review included cohort and case-control studies reporting an association between diet quality and gestational diabetes mellitus. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, Chinese Periodical Full-text Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China Wanfang Database for studies published from inception to November 18, 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADEpro GDT. Results: A total of 19 studies (15 cohort, four case-control) with 108,084 participants were included. We found that better higher diet quality before or during pregnancy reduced the risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus, including a higher Mediterranean diet (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.30-0.86), dietary approaches to stop hypertension (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.44-0.97), Alternate Healthy Eating Index (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.83), overall plant-based diet index (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.78), and adherence to national dietary guidelines (OR: 0.39; 95% CI:0.31-0.48). However, poorer diet quality increased the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus, including a higher dietary inflammatory index (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.21-1.57) and overall low-carbohydrate diets (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.22-1.64). After meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, the results remained statistically significant. Conclusions: Before and during pregnancy, higher diet quality reduced the risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus, whereas poorer diet quality increased this risk. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022372488.
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 | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".