MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404351168 · doi:10.1186/s40795-024-00960-9

Association between maternal dietary diversity during pregnancy and birth outcomes: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4404351168 on OpenAlex
Amare Abera Tareke, Edom Getnet Melak, B Mengistu, Jamal Hussen, Asressie Molla

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nutrition · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical nutritionMeta-analysisPregnancyDiversity (politics)Association (psychology)Public healthReproductive medicineObstetricsGerontologyInternal medicineNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal nutrition is a key factor influencing birth and offspring health outcomes in later life. Dietary diversity (DD) is a proxy for the macro/micronutrient adequacy of an individual’s diet. There is inadequate comprehensive evidence regarding maternal nutrition during pregnancy, measured through DD and birth outcomes. This study aimed to provide extensive evidence on maternal DD during pregnancy and birth outcomes. A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed, HINARI, and Google Scholar databases up to January 17, 2024. Studies conducted among pregnant mothers and measuring maternal DD with an evaluation of birth outcomes (low birth weight, small for gestational age, preterm birth), in the global context without design restriction were included. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The results are summarized in a table, and odds ratios were pooled where possible. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics. Potential publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger’s regression test. To explore the robustness, a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted. Thirty-three studies were used to synthesize narrative evidence (low birth weight: 31, preterm birth: 9, and small for gestational age: 4). In contrast, 24 records for low birth weight, eight for preterm birth, and four for small for gestational age were used to pool the results quantitatively. Of the 31 studies, 17 reported a positive association between maternal DD and infant birth weight, 13 studies reported a neutral association (not statistically significant), and one study reported a negative association. Overall, inadequate DD increased the risk of low birth weight OR = 1.71, 95% CI; (1.24–2.18), with I2 of 68.7%. No significant association was observed between maternal DD and preterm birth. Inadequate DD was significantly associated with small for gestational age (OR = 1.32, 95% CI; 1.15–1.49, and I2 = 0.0%). Inadequate maternal DD is associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and small for gestational age but not preterm birth, underscoring the importance of promoting adequate DD during pregnancy. To address these issues, it is essential to implement and expand nutritional programs targeted at pregnant women, especially in low-resource settings, to ensure they receive diverse and adequate diets. Further research is needed to address the current limitations and to explore the long-term implications of maternal nutrition on child health. The study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42024513197). No funding was received for this study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it