OR22-07 Postpartum Follow-up of Women with Obesity and Infertility Recruited in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Preconception Lifestyle Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Disclosure: A. Thibodeau: None. C. Richer dit Laflèche: None. F. Jean-Denis: None. M. Pesant: None. B. Carranza Mamane: None. M. Brochu: None. J. Baillargeon: None. Introduction: Obesity is a global health crisis that can adversely affect fertility. Women of reproductive age who are living with obesity and experiencing infertility are often more motivated to adopt healthier behaviors in their desire to become pregnant. Therefore, a preconception lifestyle intervention aimed at managing obesity may be particularly beneficial for this population, including for their long-term health after delivery. Thus, this study aims to assess the long-term effects of such interventions in women who have given birth. Methods: A follow-up study was conducted 6 to 10 years post-randomization of a randomized controlled trial evaluating an intervention to support the adoption of healthy lifestyle habits in women living with obesity and infertility, from the preconception period throughout pregnancy. At follow-up, we looked at self-reported lifestyle habits, body composition, metabolic health and functional capacity of the participants who had been pregnant and given birth. Physical activity was also categorized as inactive or active/moderately active based on daily physical activity levels. For this exploratory study, differences between baseline and follow-up measures between groups were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for dichotomous variables. Results: These preliminary analyses were carried out on 30 women (60% of expected total sample), which included 20 from the intervention group (IG) and 10 from the control group (CG). The results showed significant differences between the IG and CG for changes from baseline to follow-up in plasma triglyceride levels (median [med]=+0.01 vs. med=+0.27, P=0.027) and the average number of hours per week spent reading (med=+0.0 vs. med=+2.5, P=0.035). There was also a significant difference between IG and CG for changes in physical activity categories (increased: 20% vs. 30%; maintained: 80% vs 40%; decreased: 0% vs. 30%, P=0.014). Finally, IG, compared to CG, tended to reduce their daily fruit juice consumption from baseline to follow-up (med=-0.29 vs. med=-0.02, P=0.082) and to decrease their sedentary time at work (ratio sedentary hours spent working/total working hours) (med=-0.13 vs. med=+0.05, P=0.053). Conclusion: The present study focused only on pregnant individuals, with a small sample size. Despite these limitations, to our knowledge, this is the first study to follow up an intervention targeting lifestyle changes before conception 6 to 10 years later. Significant differences between groups were found 6 to 10 years post-intervention, including favorable changes in triglycerides and physical activity category for the intervention group. While results need to be confirmed in the full sample, these findings add to the growing body of literature supporting the preconception period as an opportune window for intervention to improve women’s long-term health. Presentation: Sunday, July 13, 2025
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".