Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity clearance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recommendations for physical activity during pregnancy have progressed significantly in the last 30 years and continue to evolve as an increasing body of scientific evidence becomes available. In addition, there is an increasing number of women who wish to either maintain physical fitness levels during the prenatal period or initiate exercise for a healthier lifestyle during pregnancy. As such, consistent evaluation of the risks associated with exercise during pregnancy is warranted for maternal and fetal well-being. The primary purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the scientific information available regarding maternal and fetal responses as it relates to the occurrence of adverse exercise-related events in pregnant women without contraindications to exercise. A systematic and evidence-based approach was used to analyze critically the level of evidence for risks associated with acute and chronic exercise during pregnancy in healthy pregnant women. All ar- ticles were screened according to standardized evaluation criteria developed by a panel of experts. A total of 74 investiga- tions that involved 3766 pregnant women were included in the analysis. Of the 74 studies, only 35 studies documented the presence or absence of adverse events. The serious adverse event rate for these studies was 1.4 per 10 000 h of exercise. The adverse event rate increased to 6.8 per 10 000 h of exercise when including the occurrence of more mild events and ex- ercise-related fetal bradycardia and tachycardia. Previously inactive or active women (without contraindications) are at a low risk for adverse fetal or maternal events if they participate in routine physical activity during pregnancy.
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 | 0.083 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".