MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381687588 · doi:10.1016/j.cdnut.2023.100097

Comparative Assessment of Diet Quality and Adherence to a Structured Nutrition and Exercise Intervention Compared with Usual Care in Pregnancy in a Randomized Trial

2023· article· en· W4381687588 on OpenAlexafffund
Kendra Dempsey, Michelle F. Mottola, Stephanie A. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyPsychological interventionBody mass indexGestationIntervention (counseling)Internal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In trials testing the efficacy of diet and exercise modifications during pregnancy on health outcomes, assessment of participant adherence to interventions of diet and exercise is rarely reported, with few standard methods existing to measure adherence. We aimed to assess the maternal diet quality and create an algorithm to evaluate adherence to an intervention of high protein/dairy nutrition and walking exercise from early pregnancy to birth. In Be Healthy in Pregnancy randomized trial (NCT01693510), diet quality was measured using scores from an adapted PrimeScreen food frequency questionnaire, nutrient intake assessed by 3-day diet records, and physical activity using accelerometry at 14–17 (early), 26–28 (middle), and 36–38 (late) weeks’ gestation. A novel adherence score was derived by combining data for compliance with prescribed protein and energy intakes and daily step counts in the intervention group. Between-group diet quality scores and changes in adherence scores in the intervention group across pregnancy were analyzed using generalized estimating equations adjusted for prepregnancy body mass index and study site. Diet scores were similar for intervention (n = 55) and control (n = 56) groups at baseline but only the intervention group significantly improved and maintained their scores from early to middle (18.7 ± 7.6 vs. 22.9 ± 6.1; P < 0.001) and late (22.5 ± 6.9; P < 0.008) pregnancy. Protein intake was significantly (P < 0.001) higher but energy intakes were similar in the intervention group compared with those in the control group. Adherence scores for the intervention increased significantly (P < 0.01) from early (1.52 ± 0.70) to midpregnancy (1.89 ± 0.82) but declined from midpregnancy to late (1.55 ± 0.78; P < 0.0005) pregnancy primarily owing to lower step counts. Adherence to an intervention may decline toward the end of pregnancy, particularly in maintaining physical activity. Creation of adherence scores is a feasible approach to measure combined intervention compliance for diet and physical activity and may increase transparency in interpreting results of randomized trials in pregnancy. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01689961 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01689961?cond=NCT01689961&rank=1; registered on 21 September 2012).

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207