Maternal cardioautonomic responses during and following exercise throughout pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood pressure regulation during pregnancy is poorly understood. Cardiovagal baroreflex gain (BRG) is an important contributor to blood pressure regulation through its influence on heart rate. Heart rate fluctuations occur in response to various physiological stimuli and can be measured using heart rate variability (HRV). It is unclear how these mechanisms operate during pregnancy, particularly with regard to exercise. We examined BRG and HRV prior to, during, and following prenatal exercise. Forty-three pregnant (n = 10 first trimester (TM1), n = 17 second trimester (TM2), n = 16 third trimester (TM3)) and 20 nonpregnant (NP) women underwent an incremental peak exercise test. Beat-by-beat blood pressure (photoplethysmography) and heart rate (lead II electrocardiogram) were measured throughout. BRG (the slope of the relationship between fluctuations in systolic blood pressure and the R-R interval) and HRV (root mean square of the successive differences; RMSSD) were assessed at rest, during steady-state exercise (EX), and during active recovery. BRG decreased with gestation and was lower in the TM3 group than in the NP group (17.9 ± 6.9 ms/mm Hg vs 24.8 ± 7.4 ms/mm Hg, p = 0.017). BRG was reduced during EX in all groups. Resting HRV (RMSSD) also decreased with gestation and was lower in the TM3 group than in the NP group (29 ± 17 ms vs 48 ± 20 ms, p < 0.001). RMSSD was blunted during EX in all groups compared with rest. During active recovery, RMSSD was further blunted compared with EX in the NP group but not during pregnancy (TM1, TM2, and TM3). Compared with the nonpregnant controls, the pregnant women had lower BRG and HRV at rest, but comparable cardioautonomic control during both exercise and active recovery following peak exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".