The Effect of Activity Restriction on Infant’s Birth Weight and Gestational Age at Birth: PRAMS Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:: Activity restriction is extensively prescribed for pregnant women with major comorbidities despite the lack of evidence to support its effectiveness in preventing preterm birth or low birth weight. PURPOSE:: To determine the moderation effect of home activity restriction for more than a week on infant's birth weight and gestational age at birth for high-risk women with obstetrical and medical comorbidities. METHODS:: A secondary analysis of 2004-2008 New York Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System was conducted with 1426 high-risk women. RESULTS:: High-risk group included 41% of women treated with activity restriction and 59% of those not treated with activity restriction. Women with preterm premature rupture of membrane (PPROM) who were treated with activity restriction had a lower infant birth weight ( b = -202.85, p = ≤.001) and gestational age at birth ( b = -.91, p = ≤.001) than those without activity restriction. However, women with preterm labor and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy who were not treated with activity restriction had lower infant gestational age at birth ( b = -96, p = ≤.01) and ( b = -92, p = ≤.001), respectively, compared to those who were treated with activity restriction. CONCLUSION:: Findings suggest a contrary effect of activity restriction on infants born to women with PPROM, which is a major reason for prescribing activity restriction. The current study results may trigger the need to conduct randomized control trials to determine the effect of severity of activity restriction on maternal and infant outcomes.
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 | 0.022 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".