Review of Recent Physical Activity Guidelines During Pregnancy to Facilitate Advice by Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance Physical activity during pregnancy can offer many maternal and fetal health benefits. Objective The aim was to summarize American, Canadian, and international recommendations published recently on physical activity during pregnancy to aid health care providers in their delivery of advice on the topic. Evidence Acquisition A descriptive review of 3 national guidelines and 1 international guideline on physical activity during pregnancy was conducted. The guidelines included the 2019 Canadian recommendations, the 2018 United States' Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (second edition), the 2015 (reaffirmed in 2017) American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology guideline, and the 2016–2018 International Olympic Committee recommendations for recreational and elite athletes. Results For apparently healthy women, under the guidance of their health care provider, moderate-intensity physical activity using both aerobic and muscle conditioning activities is recommended. The guidelines recommended at least 150 min/wk spread throughout the week (Canada, United States) or at least 20 to 30 min/d (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology). Conclusions and Relevance This summary of 4 recent guidelines can facilitate use of updated recommendations by health care providers regarding physical activity during pregnancy. More detailed evidence-based guidelines on physical activity during postpartum are needed. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians Learning Objectives After completing this activity, the learner should be better able to describe the most recent recommendations for physical activity during pregnancy; explain the relative and absolute contraindications to physical activity during pregnancy; and identify the warning signs for pregnant women to stop physical activity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".