MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405419403 · doi:10.24072/pcjournal.502

Structural Vulnerability Factors and Gestational Weight Gain:  A Scoping Review on the Extent, Range, and Nature of the Literature

2024· review· en· W4405419403 on OpenAlexaff
Jocelyne M Labonté, Alex Dumas, Emily Clark, Claudia Savard, Karine Fournier, Sarah O’Connor, Anne‐Sophie Morisset, Bénédicte Fontaine‐Bisson

Bibliographic record

VenuePeer Community Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nutrition SocietyInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecInstitut du Savoir MontfortUniversité LavalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Weight gainPsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer scienceBody weightComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Inadequate and excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) are rising epidemiological health concerns, affecting a substantial proportion of pregnant women in high-income countries and contributing to a multitude of adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. The aim of this scoping review was to identify key structural vulnerability factors (SVFs) related to GWG, and to examine the extent, range, and nature of the existing literature to inform future research. Methods: Electronic searches were performed in October 2018 (updated in August 2019) in MEDLINE(R) ALL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Sociological Abstracts databases. Eligible studies had an observational design, had to be conducted before COVID-19, in a high-income country, have pregnant participants, and perform inferential statistics between an SVF and GWG. Results: Of the 157 included articles, the eight SVFs most commonly studied in association with GWG were race/ethnicity (n=91 articles), age (n=87), parity (n=48), education (n=44), income (n=39), marital status (n=28), immigration (n=19), and abuse (n=12). Substantial heterogeneity across study contexts, methodologies, populations, and findings was identified. Studies spanned 22 high-income countries, were predominantly conducted in the USA (77%), and most studies (60%) had a retrospective design. Race/ethnicity was the most extensively studied factor, covering the longest time period (since 1976) and having the largest sample size, and the second-highest proportion of studies reporting a significant relationship with GWG (79%), following immigration status (95%). Conclusions: Given the heterogeneity in findings across studies, adopting an intersectional approach may enhance our understanding of the complex interplay between SVFs and the social context in relation to GWG. This nuanced perspective is critical for informing future research and developing effective strategies to address the pervasive perinatal health challenges associated with inadequate and excessive GWG.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.006
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeer Community JournalSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207