MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108339333 · doi:10.1139/h03-049

Activity Patterns During Pregnancy

2003· article· en· W2108339333 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle F. Mottola, M. Karen Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyMedicineLogistic regressionStepwise regressionOddsBody mass indexDemographyOdds ratioPhysical activityFirst trimesterObstetricsPhysical therapyGestationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to investigate determinants of the activity patterns of women prior to pregnancy and factors associated with quitting activities during pregnancy. METHODS: These data arose from a study designed to look at the impact of exercise in pregnancy on birth weight (Campbell and Mottola, 2001). This secondary analysis explored relationships between subject characteristics and exercise patterns via a self-completed questionnaire. Univariable and multivariable odds ratios were estimated using logistic regression. Multivariable models used backward stepwise variable selection. RESULTS: A total of 853 women agreed to participate and 529 women (62%) returned completed questionnaires. Of these, 369 (70%) and 258 (49%) engaged in a structured exercise program before pregnancy and in Trimester 3, respectively. Factors associated with engaging in regular structured exercise prior to pregnancy included: postsecondary education (OR = 1.50; 0.98, 2.30), no children (OR = 2.44; 1.56, 3.82), nonsmoker (OR = 1.84; 1.18, 2.88), and involvement in regular recreational activities (OR = 3.07; 1.81, 5.20). During pregnancy, all categories of activity decreased except walking, which increased by Trimester 3. Factors associated with quitting a regular structured exercise program by Trimester 3 were: having children (OR = 1.67; 1.05, 2.67), a prepregnancy BMI of 25 (OR = 1.79; 1.04, 3.13), and higher weight gain. IMPLICATIONS: Community programs that encourage active living should address these factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207