Identification of modifiable dietary factors, which are involved in the development of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), could inform strategies to prevent GDM. Therefore, we examined the dietary nutrient patterns and evaluated their relationship with GDM risk in a Chinese population using a case control study design. A total of 1,464 GDM cases and 8,092 non-GDM controls were included in the final analysis. Dietary intake was assessed using a 33-item food frequency questionnaire, and nutrients were estimated using the Chinese Standard Tables of Food Consumption. Dietary nutrient patterns were identified using factor analysis, and their associations with GDM risk were evaluated using unconditional logistic regression models adjusting for total energy intake, maternal age, high blood pressure, education, maternal body mass index (BMI), parity, and family history of diabetes. A “vitamin” nutrient pattern was characterized as the consumption of diet rich in vitamin A, carotene, vitamin B2, vitamin B6, vitamin C, dietary fiber, folate, calcium, and potassium. For every quartile increase in the vitamin factor score during one year prior to conception, the first trimester, and the second trimester of pregnancy, the GDM risk decreased by 9% (OR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.86-0.96), 9% (OR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.86-0.96), and 10% (OR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.85-0.95), respectively. The significant reduced GDM risk was seen in women regardless of age and parity, and slightly stronger effect was found in women whose age≤30 and women who are nulliparous across the three time periods. The significant association was also found in women whose BMI≤24 with similar effect size across the three time periods. Our study suggests that the vitamin nutrient pattern diet is associated with decreased GDM risk. Additional studies are necessary to explore the underlying mechanism of this relationship.
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a growing public health concern for many reasons, and its etiology remains unclear. Due to the similarity of its pathophysiology with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), we evaluated the relationship between published T2DM susceptibility genes and the risk of GDM. A total of 303 SNPs from genes including IRS1, IGF2BP2, CDKAL1, GCK, TCF7L2, KCNQ1, and KCNJ11 and the risk of GDM were examined in a nested case-control study with 321 GDM cases and 316 controls. The odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated by unconditional logistical regression as a measure of the associations between genotypes and GDM in additive, recessive, dominant, and codominant models adjusting for maternal age, maternal BMI, parity, and family history of diabetes. At the gene level, CDKAL1 was associated with GDM risk. SNPs in the CDKAL1 gene including rs4712527, rs7748720, rs9350276, and rs6938256 were associated with reduced GDM risk. However, SNPs including rs9295478, rs6935599, and rs7747752 were associated with elevated GDM risk. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, rs9295478 and rs6935599 were still significant across the additive, recessive, and codominant models; rs7748720 and rs6938256 were significant in dominant and codominant models; and rs4712527 was only significant in the codominant model. Our study provides evidence for an association between the CDKAL1 gene and risk of GDM. However, its role in the GDM pathogenesis still needs to be verified by further studies.
The battlefield treatments of spinal and spinal cord injury vary from civilian settings. However, there is no unified battlefield treatment guidelines for spine trauma in PLA. An expert consensus is reached, based on spine trauma epidemiology and the concepts of battlefield treatment combined with the existing levels of military medical care in modern warfare. Since the specialized treatment for spine trauma are no significant difference between civilian settings and modern war, the first aid, emergency treatment and early treatment of spine trauma are introduced separately in three levels in this consensus. In Level I facilities, the fast and accurate evaluation of spine trauma followed by fixation and stabilization are recommended during the first-aid stage. Re-evaluation, further treatment for possible hemorrhagic shock, dyspnea and infection are recommended at Level II facilities. At Level III facilities, it is recommended to strengthen the intensive care and the prevention of urinary system and lung infection for the wounded with severe spinal injury, however, spinal surgery is not recommended in a battlefield hospital. The grading standard for evidence evaluation and recommendation was used to reach this expert consensus.
The emergency treatment of thoracic injuries varies of general conditions and modern warfare. However, there are no unified battlefield treatment guidelines for thoracic injuries in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). An expert consensus has been reached based on the epidemiology of thoracic injuries and the concept of battlefield treatment combined with the existing levels of military medical care in modern warfare. Since there are no differences in the specialized treatment for thoracic injuries between general conditions and modern warfare, first aid, emergency treatment, and early treatment of thoracic injuries are introduced separately in three levels in this consensus. At Level I facilities, tension pneumothorax and open pneumothorax are recommended for initial assessment during the first aid stage. Re-evaluation and further treatment for hemothorax, flail chest, and pericardial tamponade are recommended at Level II facilities. At Level III facilities, simple surgical operations such as emergency thoracotomy and debridement surgery for open pneumothorax are recommended. The grading standard for evidence evaluation and recommendation was used to reach this expert consensus.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.