A goal set too high: factors associated with planning excess gestational weight gain in a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to understand physical, knowledge, psychological, and lifestyle factors associated with planned excess gestational weight gain (GWG), a strong and potentially modifiable predictor of actual excess GWG, which contributes to maternal and child obesity along with other adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. This is a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study where women completed a questionnaire in early pregnancy. Women were asked to report their planned GWG, which was then categorized as above, within, or below the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify variables associated with planned excess GWG. Of 970 women included in the analysis, 300 reported a planned GWG above the IOM guidelines. Predictors of excess planned GWG included reporting healthcare provider recommendations to gain weight above the guidelines (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 62.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.75–281.03), overestimating first trimester weight gain recommendations (aOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.21–2.77), believing in risks to the baby with inadequate GWG (aOR 2.16; 95% CI,1.29–3.60), inaccurate self-perceived prepregnancy body size (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.22–2.89), low or high emotional suppression (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06–2.99; and aOR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.21–5.45, respectively), physical inactivity (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.17), and overweight or obesity (aOR, 5.76; 95% CI, 3.70–8.98; and aOR, 11.46; 95% CI, 6.54–20.06, respectively). Protective factors against planned excess GWG included increased maternal age (aOR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92–0.99), and believing in risks to themselves with inadequate GWG (aOR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.97) or believing in risks to the baby with excess GWG (aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27–0.88). Women with overweight or obesity are at greater risk of prospectively planning excess GWG, and may especially benefit from healthcare provider counseling on appropriate GWG. Other modifiable factors for planned excess GWG included knowledge about risks of inappropriate weight gain and physical inactivity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".