MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Adherence To Nutrition Goals From A Pregnancy Nutrition And Exercise Lifestyle Intervention Program (NELIP) Trial

2025· article· en· W4414266093 on OpenAlexaff
Karishma Hosein, Taniya S. Nagpal, Roberta Bgeginski, Stephanie Paplinskie, Isabelle Giroux, Harry Prapavessis, Michelle F. Mottola

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsFord Motor Company (Canada)University of AlbertaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialMedical nutrition therapyGestationRubricNutrition EducationClinical nutrition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adherence to the nutrition component of a nutrition and exercise intervention during pregnancy can be challenging, and many studies do not report tracking changes to nutrition habits over time. Measuring the adherence to specific nutrition goals is critical for the interpretation of the success of a nutrition and exercise intervention. PURPOSE: To use a goal-specific nutrition rubric to examine nutrition adherence as part of the Nutrition and Exercise Lifestyle Intervention Program (NELIP; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02804061) during pregnancy. METHODS: Pregnant individuals completed a baseline (12-18 weeks’ gestation) 3-day food intake record (3dFR) and were randomized to one of three strategies, either receiving both nutrition and exercise simultaneously (NE; n = 27), or receiving one component first and the other introduced sequentially at 25 weeks gestation (N + E; n = 30 or E + N; n = 33), completing both components to delivery. The 3dFR was repeated at 25 (midpoint) and 36 weeks’ (endpoint) gestation and scored (out of 20 points) using an analytic rubric developed for NELIP which tracked nutrition adherence to specific goals. RESULTS: Mean adherence was measured across three time points for each treatment group. The main effect of time on adherence was significant (F(2,74) = 5.71, p = 0.004), indicating adherence changed over time across all groups. The main effect of treatment group was also significant (F(2,74) = 4.16, p = 0.02), suggesting differences in adherence among the NE, N + E, and E + N groups. There was no significant interaction between time and treatment group (p = 0.15), suggesting that adherence changed similarly over time for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to specific nutrition goals measured with a rubric becomes more difficult as pregnancy progresses, irrespective of the order of delivery of a nutrition and exercise program. Future research may include identifying individual barriers to nutrition adherence in pregnancy, especially in the second and third trimester, and testing and implementing strategies accordingly.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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