Binge‐spectrum symptoms in their association with higher gestational weight gain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gestational weight gain (GWG) above or below recommendations is common and has implications for parent and infant health. Bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder during pregnancy have been associated with higher GWG. Yet, little research has examined the associations between binge-spectrum symptoms and GWG. Likewise, few interventions exist to adequately prevent GWG. The current study investigated a broad range of predictors of GWG, with the goal of identifying potentially modifiable risk factors. METHOD: We conducted secondary data analyses of a subsample of individuals from the Alberta Pregnancy Outcome and Nutrition (APrON) longitudinal cohort study. Multinomial logistic regression estimated the odds of gestational weight gain (GWG) outside of Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and linear regression was used to examine total GWG continuously. RESULTS: Of the 1644 participants included, 848 (51.6%) exceeded the IOM's guidelines for GWG, and 272 (16.5%) gained below these recommendations. Binge-spectrum symptom symptomatology during pregnancy was not associated with exceeding GWG recommendations after accounting for post-secondary education, identifying as European Canadian, and higher pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). However, greater self-reported binge-spectrum symptomatology during pregnancy was associated with higher total GWG after accounting for age, parity, and pre-pregnancy BMI. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to replicating identified predictors of higher GWG, we found that greater binge-spectrum symptomatology was associated with higher total GWG. These findings suggest that routine screening for eating pathology during pregnancy may identify those at risk for excess GWG. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Gestational weight gain (GWG) outside of recommended ranges is associated with adverse outcomes. Little work has examined the associations between eating disorder symptoms and GWG. This study found that bulimia and binge-eating symptoms were uniquely associated with higher GWG beyond known risk factors. These findings support routine screening of eating disorder symptoms and interventions to help individuals gain within GWG recommendations during pregnancy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".