Physiological Basis for Recommendations Regarding Exercise during Pregnancy at High Altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although exercise during pregnancy has been shown to be safe and is now recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada for all healthy women, little is known about the combined effects of high altitude and exercise during pregnancy. Due to a paucity of experimental data, recommendations regarding exercise during pregnancy at elevations >/=1600 m must be based on synthesis of available information regarding the independent effects of high altitude and exercise on uteroplacental oxygen delivery. Maternal hyperventilation and elevated blood hemoglobin concentration maintain resting arterial oxygen content at or above sea-level values. During exercise, however, arterial hemoglobin saturation falls, lowering the oxygen content. Resting uterine artery blood flow is lower in residents at 3100 m than at 1600 m, and flow is likely to decrease further during exercise, in proportion to the intensity and duration. The combined reduction in arterial oxygen content and uterine artery flow suggest that fetal oxygen delivery is compromised during exercise at altitude. Anemia, which should be defined according to altitude-adjusted criteria, will further diminish oxygen delivery. Clinicians may wish to monitor patient hemoglobin concentration more frequently and adopt a more conservative stance regarding exercise during pregnancy for both residents and visitors of altitudes >/=1600 m.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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".