Major, non‐chromosomal, birth defects and maternal physical activity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We reviewed the published literature to assess the association between maternal periconceptional physical activity and the risk for major, non-chromosomal, birth defects and whether this varies by pre-pregnancy obesity. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. Data were abstracted from all articles that met our inclusion criteria and included information on physical activity intensity (mild, moderate, and vigorous) and modality (i.e., standing, lifting, other). We assessed occupational and recreational physical activity separately. The quality of included articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of 3316 screened articles, 11 were included in this review. Of the four studies that assessed prolonged standing, two reported a positive association with risk for some birth defects; null associations were observed in the other two studies. Associations between heavy lifting or other occupational physical activity exposures and risk for birth defects were inconsistent. A protective association between leisure-time physical activity (i.e., active sports, swimming) and some birth defects (e.g., neural tube defects), was suggested by the results of two studies. Only one study reported assessment of possible effect modification by maternal body mass index (BMI). DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that there may be some associations between occupational and leisure-time physical activities and some, major non-chromosomal, birth defects, but relatively limited published research exists on these associations. Further research in this area should include differentiation of birth defects phenotypes, valid assessments of all domains of physical activity, including household and transportation activity, and account for the potential influence of pre-pregnancy BMI.
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".