Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physiological responses of the fetus (especially increase in heart rate) to single, brief bouts of maternal exercise have been documented frequently. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of advising healthy pregnant women to engage in regular (at least two to three times per week) aerobic exercise on physical fitness, labour and delivery, and the outcome of pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register was searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Acceptably controlled comparisons of prescribed aerobic exercise programmes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials involving 142 women were included. The trials were not of high methodologic quality. Three trials reported significant improvement in physical fitness in the exercise group, although differences in measures used to assess fetuses prevent a quantitative pooling of results. Two small trials reported nonsignificant results on pregnancy outcomes, but apart from a reassurring absence of effect on mean gestational age [+0.3 (-0.2 to +0.9) weeks], these results allow exclusion of only extremely large effects. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Regular aerobic exercise during pregnancy appears to improve (or maintain) physical fitness. Available data are insufficient to exclude important risks or benefits for the mother or infant.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".