MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315631346 · doi:10.1155/2023/3048171

Gestational Weight Gain and Small for Gestational Age in Obese Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4315631346 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wen Chen, Beiyi Li, Kexin Gan, Jing Liu, Yajing Yang, Xiuqin Lv, Huijuan Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Endocrinology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Commission of Hebei Province
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisObstetricsSmall for gestational ageWeight gainGestational ageGestationPregnancyBody weightInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the relationship between gestational weight gain and the risk of small for gestational age in obese pregnant women. Methods. Studies were identified by searching the Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases up to June 30th, 2022. The meta-analysis was carried out to determine the risk of small for gestational age with gestational weight gain (GWG) below the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines compared with within the guidelines in obese women. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality. The chi-squared test, Q test, and I2 test were used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted, and publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger’s test. Sensitivity analyses were performed for three groups of obese people (I: BMI 30–34.9 kg/m2, II: BMI 35–39.9 kg/m2, and III: BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) to examine the association of obesity and SGA. Results. A total of 788 references were screened, and 29 studies (n = 1242420 obese women) were included in the systematic review. Obese women who gained weight below the IOM guideline had a higher risk of SGA than those who gained weight within the guideline (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.16–1.38, Z = 5.36). Both weight loss (<0 kg) and inadequate weight (0–4.9 kg) during pregnancy in obese women are associated with an increased risk of SGA (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.37–1.64, Z = 8.82) (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.14–1.23, Z = 8.06). The same conclusions were also confirmed for the three obesity classes (I: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.29–1.47; II: OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.30–1.49; and III: OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.16–1.37). Subgroup analysis by country showed that GWG below guidelines in obese women of the USA and Europe was associated with risk for SGA (USA (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.15–1.46), Europe (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.11–1.40)) and not in Asia (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.91–1.50). Conclusion. Our findings indicated that obese pregnant women who had weight loss or inadequate weight (0–4.9 kg) according to the IOM guideline had increased risks for SGA. Moreover, we also evaluated that gestational weight loss (<0 kg) in these pregnancies was associated with an increased risk for SGA compared with inadequate weight (0–4.9 kg) in these pregnancies. Therefore, the clinical focus should assist obese women to achieve GWG within the IOM guidelines to decrease the risk for SGA.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.039
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of EndocrinologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207