MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2267178151

The Effects of Exercise During Pregnancy on Infant Neuromotor Skills

2015· dissertation· en· W2267178151 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georganna Gower

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Scholarship East Carolina University's Institutional Repository (East Carolina University) · 2015
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePregnancyAerobic exercisePsychological interventionOffspringObesityPhysical therapyMotor skillGross motor skillChildhood obesityIntervention (counseling)PediatricsOverweightInternal medicinePsychiatry
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In 2011-2012, the prevalence of obesity in children 2-19 years was 17% in the United States, and North Carolina was ranked fifth in the nation for childhood obesity. Researchers have attempted to prevent obesity by intervening at various times in a child’s life, with limited success. Perhaps the earliest interventions to diminish the prevalence of childhood obesity would be those occurring before birth. Moderate to vigorous aerobic exercise during pregnancy has been shown to contribute to improved cardiovascular health in the offspring. To date research has not investigated the effects of maternal exercise on infants’ neurobehavioral status. The purpose of this study wa¬¬s to determine the effects of maternal exercise during pregnancy on the neuromotor development of offspring. We hypothesized that exercise during pregnancy would be associated with improved neuromotor scores in infants at one and six months of age, based on standard pediatric assessment of motor skills and reflexes.
\n
\nEighty healthy, pregnant women between 18-35 years were recruited for this study from the Greenville, NC area. Eligible women were assigned to one of three exercise groups or to the control, non-exercise (CTRL) group. Exercise groups performed aerobic exercise, strengthening exercise, or circuit training 3 times per week under supervision, while those in CTRL group maintained usual activity and did not receive an exercise intervention.
\n
\nPost-delivery, neurodevelopmental exams were performed on the infants at one and six months using the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd Edition (PDMS-2) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS). Variables analyzed to determine differences between groups included: AIMS raw score: age ratio, and PDMS-2 subtest percentiles, subtest standard scores, and overall Gross Motor Quotient (GMQ) percentile.
\n
\nSignificant between-group differences were found as infants in exercise groups had higher GMQ than that of infants in CTRL group (Exercise mean 104.7 ± 4.31 vs. CTRL mean 100 ± 4; p=0.03). The GMQ percentile scores were also significantly greater in infants in exercise groups compared to those in CTRL group (Exercise mean=62.1 ± 10.9 vs. CTRL mean=50 ± 10; p=0.03). Stationary percentile scores were significantly greater in infants in exercise groups compared to those in CTRL group (Exercise mean= 49.5 ± 16.0 vs. CTRL mean=31.3 ± 12.5; p=0.02), as were the Stationary standard scores (Exercise mean= 9.9 ± 1.3 vs. CTRL mean= 8.5 ± 1.0; p=0.03). Locomotion percentile scores were significantly greater in infants in exercise groups compared to those in CTRL group (Exercise mean= 59.1 ± 7.5 vs. CTRL mean= 50 ± 10.6; p=0.03), as were Locomotion standard scores (Exercise mean= 10.6± 1.3 vs. CTRL mean= 10 ± 0.8; p=0.04).
\n
\nThe infants in this study appeared to benefit from maternal exercise during pregnancy. Infants with higher neurodevelopmental scores in infancy might be expected to have higher scores at later months as well, which may set them up to be “good movers� and more physically active in childhood and beyond. Furthermore, children who are physically active at an early age will likely continue to lead a physically active lifestyle into adulthood and reduce the risk of becoming overweight or obese.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,620
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,220
Écart entre enseignants0,211 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Scholarship East Carolina University's Institutional Repository (East Carolina University)Même sujetObesity, Physical Activity, DietTravaux en français237 207