GLP-1 response during pregnancy: variations between trimesters and associations with appetite sensations and usual energy intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Further research is required to understand hormonal regulation of food intake during pregnancy and its association with energy intake. The objectives are to ( i) compare postprandial responses of plasma glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) between trimesters, ( ii) compare postprandial appetite sensations between trimesters, and ( iii) examine trimester-specific associations between GLP-1 levels, appetite sensations, and usual energy intake. At each trimester, participants ( n = 26) consumed a standard test meal following a 12 h fast. Plasma GLP-1 levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method at fasting and at 30, 60, 120, and 180 min postprandial. A visual analogue scale assessing appetite sensations was completed at fasting and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 min postprandial. Mean energy intake was assessed using three web-based 24 h dietary recalls at each trimester. Lower postprandial GLP-1 responses were observed in the 2nd ( p = 0.004) and 3rd trimesters ( p < 0.001) compared to the 1st trimester. Greater postprandial sensations of desire to eat, hunger, and prospective food consumption were noted in the 3rd trimester compared to the 1st trimester ( p < 0.04, for all). Fasting GLP-1 was negatively associated with fasting appetite sensations (except fullness) at the 2nd trimester ( p < 0.02, for all). Postprandially, significant associations were observed for incremental areas under the curve from 0 to 30 min between GLP-1 and fullness at the 2nd ( p = 0.01) and 3rd trimesters ( p = 0.03). No associations between fasting or postprandial GLP-1 and usual energy intake were observed. Overall, GLP-1 and appetite sensation responses significantly differ between trimesters, but few associations were observed between GLP-1, appetite sensations, and usual energy intake.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".