Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011-2012, the prevalence of obesity in children 2-19 years was 17% in the United States, and North Carolina was ranked fifth in the nation for childhood obesity. Researchers have attempted to prevent obesity by intervening at various times in a child’s life, with limited success. Perhaps the earliest interventions to diminish the prevalence of childhood obesity would be those occurring before birth. Moderate to vigorous aerobic exercise during pregnancy has been shown to contribute to improved cardiovascular health in the offspring. To date research has not investigated the effects of maternal exercise on infants’ neurobehavioral status. The purpose of this study wa¬¬s to determine the effects of maternal exercise during pregnancy on the neuromotor development of offspring. We hypothesized that exercise during pregnancy would be associated with improved neuromotor scores in infants at one and six months of age, based on standard pediatric assessment of motor skills and reflexes. \n \nEighty healthy, pregnant women between 18-35 years were recruited for this study from the Greenville, NC area. Eligible women were assigned to one of three exercise groups or to the control, non-exercise (CTRL) group. Exercise groups performed aerobic exercise, strengthening exercise, or circuit training 3 times per week under supervision, while those in CTRL group maintained usual activity and did not receive an exercise intervention. \n \nPost-delivery, neurodevelopmental exams were performed on the infants at one and six months using the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd Edition (PDMS-2) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS). Variables analyzed to determine differences between groups included: AIMS raw score: age ratio, and PDMS-2 subtest percentiles, subtest standard scores, and overall Gross Motor Quotient (GMQ) percentile. \n \nSignificant between-group differences were found as infants in exercise groups had higher GMQ than that of infants in CTRL group (Exercise mean 104.7 ± 4.31 vs. CTRL mean 100 ± 4; p=0.03). The GMQ percentile scores were also significantly greater in infants in exercise groups compared to those in CTRL group (Exercise mean=62.1 ± 10.9 vs. CTRL mean=50 ± 10; p=0.03). Stationary percentile scores were significantly greater in infants in exercise groups compared to those in CTRL group (Exercise mean= 49.5 ± 16.0 vs. CTRL mean=31.3 ± 12.5; p=0.02), as were the Stationary standard scores (Exercise mean= 9.9 ± 1.3 vs. CTRL mean= 8.5 ± 1.0; p=0.03). Locomotion percentile scores were significantly greater in infants in exercise groups compared to those in CTRL group (Exercise mean= 59.1 ± 7.5 vs. CTRL mean= 50 ± 10.6; p=0.03), as were Locomotion standard scores (Exercise mean= 10.6± 1.3 vs. CTRL mean= 10 ± 0.8; p=0.04). \n \nThe infants in this study appeared to benefit from maternal exercise during pregnancy. Infants with higher neurodevelopmental scores in infancy might be expected to have higher scores at later months as well, which may set them up to be “good movers� and more physically active in childhood and beyond. Furthermore, children who are physically active at an early age will likely continue to lead a physically active lifestyle into adulthood and reduce the risk of becoming overweight or obese.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".