Research Article Limiting Excess Weight Gain in Healthy Pregnant Women: Importance of Energy Intakes, Physical Activity, and Adherence to Gestational Weight Gain Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the originalwork is properly cited. Few studies have investigated if compliance with energy intakes, physical activity, and weight gain guidelines attenuate postpartum weight retention (PPWR) inmothers attending prenatal classes.We investigated whether (a) daily energy intakes within 300 kcal of estimated energy requirements (EERs), (b) walkingmore than 5000 steps/day, (c) targeting the recommended weight gain goals for prepregnancy BMI, and/or (d) achieving weekly or total gestational weight gain (GWG) recommendations minimized PPWR in 54 women attending prenatal classes in Montreal/Ottawa, Canada. Participants completed a validated pregnancy physical activity questionnaire (PPAQ), 3 telephone-validated 24-hr dietary recalls, and wore a pedometer for one week. PPWR was measured 6 weeks after delivery. Results showed that 72 % had healthy prepregnancy BMIs. However, 52 % consumed>300 kcal/day in excess of their EER, 54 % exceeded recommended GWG, and more overweight (93%) than normal weight women (38%) cited nonrecommended GWG targets. Following delivery, 33 % were classified as overweight, and 17 % were obese. Multiple logistic regressions revealed that women targeting “recommended weight gain advice ” were 3 times more likely to meet total GWG recommendations (OR: 3.2,
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".