Interpregnancy Weight Change Among Mothers of a Child with a Major Congenital Anomaly: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eyal Cohen,1– 3 Péter Szentkúti,4 Erzsébet Horváth-Puhó,4 Hilary K Brown,3,5 Sonia M Grandi,2 Henrik Toft Sørensen,4,6 Joel G Ray2,3,7 1Department of Pediatrics and Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Children, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 4Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; 5Department of Health & Society, University of Toronto Scarborough; 6Clinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; 7St.Michael’s Hospital Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Eyal Cohen, Department of Pediatrics and Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Children, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Tel +1 416-813-7654, Email eyal.cohen@sickkids.caBackground: The mother of an infant with a major congenital anomaly is at a higher risk of premature cardiometabolic disease, possibly from chronic caregiver stress and distraction from self-care, including maintaining a healthy lifestyle and body weight.Objective: To compare the interpregnancy weight gain in women whose first infant had a major congenital anomaly vs those without an affected child.Methods: Multivariable linear regression compared women whose infant had an anomaly vs those whose infant did not, adjusting for interpregnancy time interval, demographics, smoking and health status at the first pregnancy.Results: Of the 199,536 women who had two consecutive singleton births, 4035 (2.0%) had a child with an anomaly at the first birth. The mean (SD) maternal BMI at the start of the first pregnancy was 24.1 (4.7) and 23.7 (4.4) kg/m2 in women with, and without, an anomaly-affected newborn. By the start of the second pregnancy, 3 years later, they had gained a mean (SD) of 2.2 (5.5) and 1.8 (5.2) kg, respectively – an adjusted absolute higher gain of 0.26 kg (95% CI 0.10 to 0.42) in women with an anomaly-affected first-born infant compared to those with an unaffected pregnancy. The adjusted interpregnancy weight gain difference was greatest in women whose first-born infant had a multi-organ anomaly at 0.59 kg (95% CI 0.02 to 1.16). The adjusted odds ratio of moving from a normal BMI category of 18.5– 24.9 kg/m2 in the first pregnancy, to an overweight or obese BMI category of 25+ kg/m2 in the second, was 1.18 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.32) comparing mothers with vs without an anomaly-affected child in the first pregnancy.Conclusion: Mothers of an infant with a major congenital anomaly have a modestly higher interpregnancy weight gain and tend to climb to a higher BMI category. The long-term implications of this greater weight trajectory require further study.Keywords: weight gain, congenital anomaly, inter-pregnancy, body mass index
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".