Periconceptional Dietary Quality and Metabolic Syndrome at 3 Years Postpartum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The period around pregnancy is a critical window in the primordial prevention of cardiovascular disease, but little is known about the role of dietary patterns in cardiometabolic health. Our objective was to determine the association between alignment of periconceptional diet with the 2020 to 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the risk of metabolic syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-Be Heart Health Study, a pregnancy cohort study that followed pregnant participants to a median of 3 years postpartum (n=4423). Usual dietary intake in the 3 months around conception was estimated from a Food Frequency Questionnaire. Alignment with the Dietary Guidelines was measured using the Healthy Eating Index-2020, where higher scores represent greater alignment. Postpartum metabolic syndrome was defined using the American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guideline. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome at 3 years postpartum was 20%. After adjusting for confounders, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was flat up to a periconceptional Healthy Eating Index-2020 total score of ≈60, and then declined steeply as scores increased. Compared with a Healthy Eating Index-2020 score of 60, having scores of 70, 80, and 90 were associated with 2, 4, and 7 fewer cases of metabolic syndrome per 100 individuals, respectively (prevalence differences: -0.02 [95% CI, -0.03, 0]; -0.04 [-0.08, -0.1]; -0.07 [-0.13, -0.02]). CONCLUSIONS: Dietary interventions around conception and systems-level changes to support high diet quality may be important for improving postpartum cardiometabolic health, and helping to reverse or slow the decline in women's cardiometabolic health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".