A 12-Week Exercise Program for Pregnant Women with Obesity to Improve Physical Activity Levels: An Open Randomised Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a 12-week supervised exercise program promotes an active lifestyle throughout pregnancy in pregnant women with obesity. METHODS: In this preliminary randomised trial, pregnant women (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) were allocated to either standard care or supervised training, from 15 to 27 weeks of gestation. Physical activity was measured by accelerometry at 14, 28 and 36 weeks, while fitness (oxygen consumption (VO2) at the anaerobic threshold), nutrition (caloric intake and macronutrients percentage) and anthropometry were assessed at 14 and 28 weeks of gestation. Analyses were performed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: A total of fifty (50) women were randomised, 25 in each group. There was no time-group interaction for time spent at moderate and vigorous activity (pinteraction = 0.064), but the exercise group's levels were higher than controls' at all times (pgroup effect = 0.014). A significant time-group interaction was found for daily physical activity (p = 0.023); similar at baseline ((22.0 ± 6.7 vs 21.8 ± 7.3) x 10(4) counts/day) the exercise group had higher levels than the control group following the intervention ((22.8 ± 8.3 vs 19.2 ± 4.5) x 10(4) counts/day, p = 0.020) and at 36 weeks of gestation ((19.2 ± 1.5 vs 14.9 ± 1.5) x 10(4) counts/day, p = 0.034). Exercisers also gained less weight than controls during the intervention period despite similar nutritional intakes (difference in weight change = -0.1 kg/week, 95% CI -0.2; -0.02, p = 0.016) and improved cardiorespiratory fitness (difference in fitness change = 8.1%, 95% CI 0.7; 9.5, p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard care, a supervised exercise program allows pregnant women with obesity to maintain fitness, limit weight gain and attenuate the decrease in physical activity levels observed in late pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01610323.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".