MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Relationship Between Maternal Physical Activity during Late Pregnancy and Infant Motor Development

2019· article· en· W2953609183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nikitha Rajendran, Karen Furgal, Lauren Miller, Kolbi Edens, Kristin Yoho, Jill M. Maples, Rachel A. Tinius

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstetricsPregnancyMotor activityPhysical developmentDevelopmental psychologyInfant developmentMotor skillPsychologyMedicineBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is beneficial for pregnant women and their offspring. Exercise during pregnancy may elicit improvements in the brain/neurodevelopment of offspring; however, it is unknown whether or not physical activity during pregnancy is connected to infant motor development. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between maternal physical activity during late pregnancy and infant motor development at four months of age. METHODS: Physical activity was objectively assessed during late pregnancy (32-39 weeks gestation) via a wrist worn accelerometer. The amount of time spent sedentary and participating in light and moderate exercises were calculated for one week. Within 48 hours of birth, surveys were given to participants to complete prospectively with information on time their infant spends in different positions (supine, prone, supported sitting and standing), infant feeding practices (breastfed vs. formula-fed), and other factors that could contribute to infant motor development during the first 4 months of life. Between 4 and 4.5 months of age, the motor development of the child was assessed by a board-certified pediatric physical therapist using the well-validated Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). RESULTS: Thirty women-infant pairs participated in the study (n=30). Infant motor development percentiles were not correlated to time spent sedentary (r=-.02, p=.94), time spent participating in light activity (r=-.03, p=.88), or time spent participating in moderate activity during late pregnancy (r=.04, p=.85). In addition, there was not a significant relationship between infant motor scores and the total time an infant spent in prone (“tummy time”) (r=.06, p=.81). Interestingly, infants who were exclusively breastfed at 4 months had a significantly higher mean motor score percentiles compared to those who were on formula (19.0 vs. 15.8, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There was no relationship between maternal physical activity levels during late pregnancy and infant motor development at four months of age. However, infants who were still breastfed at 4 months of age had higher motor development percentiles. The long-term implications of these data are substantial as motor performance in infancy is linked to an improved-cognitive function in school-age children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207