Association between gestational weight gain and perinatal outcomes among twin gestations based on the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gestational weight gain (GWG) has been understudied among twin pregnancies. This systematic review aimed to review the data on the associations between GWG, based on the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines and pregnancy outcomes among twin gestations. A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search for eligible studies published from January 2010 to August 2020 was conducted in the EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Data on study characteristics and main findings were extracted independently by two reviewers using a standard form. Outcomes of interest included (spontaneous) preterm birth (PTB), gestational hypertensive disorder (gestational hypertension and eclampsia), and small for gestational age (SGA). Eighteen observational studies of twin gestations met the inclusion criteria. GWG below the IOM recommendations was reported to be associated with increased PTB and SGA while GWG above the recommendation was associated with increased gestational hypertensive disorder. However, the results were inconsistent. Methodological limitations, such as a retrospective design, the use of weekly GWG, a small sample size and insufficient adjustment, impeded the clarification of the association between GWG and perinatal outcomes. In addition, the optimal GWG for underweight women was not fully studied. The maintenance of weight gain within the 2009 IOM guidelines would decrease the risks of adverse outcomes among twin pregnancies. However, rigorous studies are warranted to provide robust evidence to refine the optimal GWG among twin gestations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".