Do pregnant women eat healthier than non-pregnant women of childbearing age?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to compare the dietary quality and intake of pregnant women, women planning to conceive and women of childbearing age. Fifty-five pregnant women were matched for age and pre-pregnancy body mass index with 55 women planning to conceive and 55 women of childbearing age. Three Web-based 24-h recalls were completed, from which the Canadian Healthy Eating Index was calculated. Pregnant women had greater overall diet quality scores (66.8 ± 10.7, 60.3 ± 14.1 and 61.4 ± 12.8, in pregnant vs. planning to conceive and childbearing age women, p = .009), explained by a higher intake in fruits, vegetables and grain products and lower intake of foods that are high in fat, sugar or salt. Energy intake was significantly higher in pregnant versus planning to conceive women only (2283 ± 518 vs. 2062 ± 430 kcal, p = .03). Diet quality was greater among pregnant women, but diet quality scores were low in all groups, indicating that healthier dietary behaviours should be encouraged for all childbearing age 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".