Interpregnancy Weight Change Among Mothers of a Child with a Major Congenital Anomaly: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the interpregnancy weight gain in women whose first infant had a major congenital anomaly vs. those without an affected child. Design: Nationwide cohort study Setting: Denmark Population: All primigravid women with two consecutive singleton births between January 2004 and December 2017. Main Outcome Measure: Inter-pregnancy weight difference Methods: Multivariable linear regression compared women whose infant had an anomaly vs. those whose infant did not, adjusting for interpregnancy time interval, demographics, smoking and health status at the first pregnancy. Results: Of the 199,536 women, 4035 (2.0%) had a child with an anomaly at the first birth. The mean (SD) maternal BMI at the start of the first pregnancy was 24.2 (4.9) and 23.8 (4.6) kg/m2 in women with, and without, an anomaly-affected newborn. By the start of the second pregnancy, their interpregnancy weight gain was 4.7% and 4.2%, respectively – an adjusted absolute higher gain of 0.34% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.58) or 0.13 kg (95% CI 0.01 to 0.26) in women with an anomaly-affected first-born infant. Compared to those with an unaffected pregnancy, the interpregnancy weight gain difference was greatest in women whose first-born infant had a multi-organ anomaly (0.73%, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.57). Weight gain was more pronounced in women whose infants spent >30 days in hospital between pregnancies. Conclusions: Mothers of an infant with a major congenital anomaly have higher weight gain after pregnancy. Strategies are needed to support a healthy lifestyle in these women.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".