Does Dietitian Involvement During Pregnancy Improve Birth Outcomes? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal diet during pregnancy can have a significant impact on maternal and offspring health. As nutrition counselling is an important component of prenatal care, registered dietitians (RDs) are uniquely trained professionals who can provide personalized nutrition counselling customized to an individual's sociocultural needs. The objective of this systematic review was to determine if RD involvement during pregnancy is associated with a lower prevalence of adverse birth outcomes in the United States and Canada. The review was conducted through a search of four databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science. A total of 14 studies were identified. Women had a lower prevalence of low birth weight and preterm infants when RDs were involved during prenatal care. While RD involvement during pregnancy was not associated with macrosomia, more research is needed to assess its relationship with small for gestational age, large for gestational age, and infant mortality. Future research should also investigate the specific dietary advice provided by RDs and the extent and timing of their involvement throughout pregnancy to better understand the mechanisms surrounding nutrition counselling, in utero development, and health outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".