Maternal knowledge of fetal movements in late pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that fetal movements are an important indicator of fetal well-being. About a quarter of women who present with decreased fetal movements have adverse perinatal outcomes such as intrauterine growth restriction and stillbirth. There are no New Zealand studies reporting maternal knowledge about fetal movements in late pregnancy. AIMS: To determine what information women in the third trimester of pregnancy receive about fetal movements, both from their maternity caregivers and from other sources. METHODS: A convenience sample of 100 women attending two antenatal clinics in Auckland in November and December 2011 were interviewed by a medical student. RESULTS: Ninety-seven per cent of women reported that their lead maternity carer (LMC) regularly asked about fetal movements, and 62% recalled receiving information from their LMC about what to expect regarding fetal movements in the last three months of pregnancy. Thirty-three per cent recalled receiving information from their LMC that their baby's movements should increase or stay the same and 20% that their baby's movements may decrease in late pregnancy. Forty per cent were advised to contact their LMC if they had any concerns about their baby's movements, and one-quarter were informed to seek advice if they had fewer than 10 movements in a day. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a proportion of pregnant women in Auckland do not have optimum information about fetal movements. Strategies to enhance maternal knowledge such as a pamphlet about fetal movements may be helpful.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".