MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409244892 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003729

Does Delivery of a Nutrition and Exercise Intervention Simultaneously or Sequentially Prevent Excessive Gestational Weight Gain? The NELIP Trial

2025· article· en· W4409244892 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roberta Bgeginski, Taniya S. Nagpal, Karishma Hosein, Mollie Manley, Stephanie Paplinskie, Harry Prapavessis, Christina Campbell, Barbra de Vrijer, Michelle F. Mottola

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaLondon Health Sciences CentreChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageRandomized controlled trialWeight gainBody mass indexGestationBirth weightPregnancyAnimal scienceBody weightPhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of sequential versus simultaneous introduction of nutrition and exercise behavior intervention strategies at preventing early or late excessive gestational weight gain (EGWG). METHODS: Parallel-group randomized trial at a single center (London, Canada) included 84 healthy pregnant individuals (mean age: 32.4 ± 3.4 yr; prepregnancy body mass index: 26.0 ± 5.1 kg·m -2 ) randomly allocated at 12-18 wk gestational age (GA; baseline) to either NE (nutrition and exercise delivered simultaneously; n = 25), N + E (nutrition first and exercise added at 25 wk GA; n = 29) or E + N (exercise first and nutrition added at 25 wk GA; n = 30). Early weight gain was analyzed weekly from baseline up to 25 wk GA (midpoint) and later from midpoint to 36 wk GA. RESULTS: From baseline to 25 wk, no differences were found for the amount of EGWG (NE: 1.6 ± 1.4 kg, N + E: 1.9 ± 1.7 kg, E + N: 1.3 ± 1.3 kg; P = 0.62) or for the number of those who gained excessively ( P = 0.38). However, from midpoint to final assessment, N + E gained more excessive weight (2.9 ± 2.3 kg; NE 2.5 ± 1.7 kg; E + N 1.6 ± 1.3 kg; P = 0.002, respectively) with more participants ( n = 21; P = 0.03) gaining excessively than NE ( n = 11) and E + N ( n = 12). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering the components of a nutrition and exercise intervention sequentially or simultaneously equally influences early EGWG. However, after 25 wk GA, introducing nutrition sequentially into an exercise program (E + N) or the continuation of combined nutrition and exercise (NE), mitigated EGWG compared with introducing exercise sequentially to a nutrition program (N + E). Sequencing of components may be an important factor to consider for intervention success, specifically by introducing an exercise component first followed by nutrition led to superior overall program adherence, with the least amount of EGWG.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→