Acute fetal response to high-intensity interval training in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of women do not meet the recommended levels of exercise during their pregnancies, frequently due to a lack of time. High-intensity interval training offers a potential solution, providing an effective, time-efficient exercise modality. This exercise modality has not been studied in pregnancy therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate fetal response to a high-intensity interval training resistance circuit in the late second and early third trimesters of pregnancy. Fourteen active, healthy women with uncomplicated, singleton pregnancies participated in a high-intensity interval training resistance circuit between 28 + 0/7 and 32 + 0/7 weeks. A Borg rating of perceived exertion of 15–17/20 and an estimated heart rate of 80%–90% of maternal heart-rate maximum was targeted. Fetal well-being was evaluated continuously with fetal heart-rate tracings and umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry conducted pre-and post-exercise. Fetal heart rate tracings were normal throughout the exercise circuit. Post-exercise, umbilical artery end-diastolic flow was normal and significant decreases were observed in the mean systolic/diastolic ratios, pulsatility indexes and resistance indexes. Therefore, in a small cohort of active pregnant women, a high-intensity interval training resistance circuit in the late second and early third trimesters of pregnancy appears to be a safe exercise modality with no acute, adverse fetal effects but further study is required. Novelty: High-intensity interval training, at an intensity in excess of current recommendations, does not appear to be associated with any adverse fetal effects in previously active pregnant women. High-intensity interval training is an enjoyable and effective exercise modality in previously active pregnant women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".