Physical exertion at work during pregnancy did not increase risk of preterm delivery or fetal growth restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pompeii LA, Savitz DA, Evenson KR, et al . Physical exertion at work and the risk of preterm delivery and small-for-gestational-age birth. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:1279–88. [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2][Web of Science][3] Q In pregnant working women, does physical exertion at work (standing, lifting, night work, and long hours) increase the risk of preterm delivery or fetal growth restriction? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ Obstetrics ★★★★★★☆ Paediatrics ★★★★★★☆ Occupational & environmental health ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Design: prospective cohort study. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Setting: prenatal clinics at 3 hospitals in North Carolina, USA. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Participants: 1908 English speaking women ⩾16 years of age who were 24–29 weeks pregnant with a singleton gestation and had worked ⩾28 days in the first 2 trimesters of pregnancy. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Risk factors: physical exertion at work during the first (1–12 wk) or second (13–27 wk) trimester, including standing, heavy lifting (>11 kg), regular night work (10:00 PM–7:00 AM), and long hours (exposure determined by telephone interview at 24–31 wk gestation). ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Outcomes: preterm delivery (<37 wk gestation) and small for gestational age (SGA) infant (birth weight <10th percentile) (evaluated only in Caucasian and African-American … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DObstetrics%2B%2526%2BGynecology%26rft.stitle%253DObstet%2BGynecol%26rft.issn%253D0029-7844%26rft.aulast%253DPompeii%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D106%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D1279%26rft.epage%253D1288%26rft.atitle%253DPhysical%2Bexertion%2Bat%2Bwork%2Band%2Bthe%2Brisk%2Bof%2Bpreterm%2Bdelivery%2Band%2Bsmall-for-gestational-age%2Bbirth.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16319253%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16319253&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F5%2F156.atom [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000233695200011&link_type=ISI [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".