Exploratory Study of the Relationship Between Maternal Body Mass Index and Spontaneous Fetal Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal body mass index (BMI) has been reported to be associated with the number of fetal body movements and the duration of fetal breathing movements in hypertensive pregnant women (Brown et al., 2008). However, whether a relationship exists in pregnancies classified as overweight or normal weight but not complicated by hypertension is unknown and the focus of this study. Forty-five maternal-fetal pairs (normotensive, normal weight=15; normotensive, overweight=15; hypertensive=15) who had participated in a study of fetal behavior which included a 20 min real-time ultrasound scan observation of fetal movements were randomly selected from the laboratory archival database. Gestational age at testing ranged from 33-39 weeks [M(SD)= 36.2 (1.4) weeks]. All infants were delivered healthy at term. Video-recordings of the ultrasound scans were scored for the number of fetal body movements (interrater reliability r=.97) and the cumulative duration of breathing (interrater reliability r=.94) movements. The number of fetal body movements differed between groups, F(2,38)=3.19, p=0.05, with fetuses of overweight mothers moving less frequently than those of normal weight mothers (M=9.7 vs 15.5, respectively). Maternal BMI prior to pregnancy, r=-0.43, p<0.01, and at time of observation, r=-0.44, p<0.01, was associated with the number of fetal body movements, but not with duration of breathing movements. As BMI increased, the number of fetal body movements decreased. It was concluded that maternal BMI may affect the number of spontaneous fetal movements. A prospective study is necessary to determine whether BMI should be considered when using body movement counts to assess well-being and/or neurodevelopment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".