Risk assessment for physical activity and exercise clearance: in pregnant women without contraindications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, exercise was advised with caution or not recommended for pregnant women. Women active before pregnancy were advised by physicians to reduce their habitual exercise levels, while previously inactive women were advised to refrain from initiating exercise programs. 1 However, guidelines for exercise during pregnancy have evolved substantially during the past 30 years; recommendations have become less restrictive as evidence-based information becomes more readily available. 2 Moreover, an increasing number of pregnant women wish to maintain prepregnancy physical fitness levels during the prenatal period, and others wish to initiate exercise for healthier pregnancies. 2,3 The conservative nature of medical advice in the past was intended to safeguard the health of both the mother and the growing fetus. 2,3 Advice was intentionally conservative because of concern that exercise might shift oxygenated blood and energy substrates away from the fetus to maternal skeletal muscle, as well as increase core body temperature during vulnerable developmental periods such as embryogenesis. Therefore, it was largely unknown whether exercise increased the risk of congenital abnormalities and caused disturbances in optimal fetal growth. 2 There were also maternal concerns that excessive exercise might cause conditions such as chronic fatigue and hypoglycemia, or increase the risk of injury (eg, low back pain, musculoskeletal injury). 4,5 A more contemporary view of exercise during pregnancy emphasizes that women and their care providers need to consider the risks of not participating in regular physical activities during the prenatal period. 3
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".