The Effects of Exercise Conditioning in Normal and Overweight Pregnant Women on Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-pregnancy obesity is a risk factor for preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and hypertension. Regular exercise during pregnancy has been shown to decrease the risk of these obstetrical complications. The purpose of this prospective study was to measure the effects of an exercise program in normal-weight and overweight/obese pregnant women on blood pressure (BP) and cardiac autonomic function, determined by heart rate variability (HRV) and baroreflex sensitivity (BRS). Twenty-two sedentary pregnant women, recruited at 20 weeks gestational age (GA), were grouped as normal weight or overweight/obese. They were systematically assigned to an exercise (walking) group or control (nonwalking) group after the first participants were randomly assigned. Women in the walking groups participated in a 16-week, low-intensity walking program. BP, HRV, and BRS were measured at rest and during exercise at the beginning (20 weeks GA) and end (36 weeks GA) of the walking program. Results indicated that women in the control groups (especially overweight women) showed changes in BP, HRV, and BRS over pregnancy that were not seen in the walking group. Overweight women in the control group increased resting systolic BP by 10 mmHg and diastolic BP by 7 mmHg. HRV declined in the control group but not in the walking group. A reduction in BRS and R-R interval at rest was found in all groups except the walking normal-weight group. The results suggest that an exercise program could attenuate the increase in BP and the loss of parasympathetic tone associated with pregnancy, especially in overweight women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".