MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161862761 · doi:10.1123/jpah.10.7.1000

Use of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) to Identify Behaviors Associated With Appropriate Gestational Weight Gain During Pregnancy

2013· article· en· W2161862761 on OpenAlexaff
Tamara R. Cohen, Hugues Plourde, Kristine G. Koski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Activity and Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyWeight gainObstetricsPhysical activityMedicineGestationPhysical therapyBody weightEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) assesses physical activity practices of pregnant women. The purpose of this study was to identify specific pregnancy practices that were associated with a healthy gestational weight gain (GWG). METHODS: Associations between PPAQ scores, pedometer steps, energy intakes (EI), energy expenditures (EE), and rate of GWG were assessed for 61 pregnant women in their second or third trimester during a home visit. Principle component analyses (PCA) were used to cluster PPAQ questions into FACTORS associated with either rate or total GWG, physical activity (PA), EE, EI, and parity. RESULTS: PCA identified 3 FACTORS: Factor 1 associated EE with parity and child care; Factor 2 clustered several structured exercise activities; and Factor 3 grouped walking, playing with pets, and shopping with pedometer steps. Only Factor 3 clustered steps with weekly rate of GWG. EI was not associated with PA or GWG. CONCLUSIONS: PCA analysis identified 15 of 32 PPAQ questions that were related to increased physical activity in pregnant women, but only walking and pedometer steps were associated with GWG. Our analysis supports daily walking as the preferred PA for achieving a healthy rate of GWG.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical Activity and HealthSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207