Prenatal Anxiety and Exercise. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of prenatal anxiety has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anxiety is associated with other cardiovascular, physiological, and mental illnesses, resulting in adverse health effects for the mother and foetus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of physical activity (PA) during pregnancy on the prevalence of prenatal anxiety or symptoms of anxiety. A systematic review and two meta-analyses were performed (Registration No. CRD42021275333). Peer-reviewed articles reporting the effect of a PA intervention on anxiety during pregnancy were included. The first meta-analysis (MA) included 10 studies reporting final scores of prenatal anxiety. A negative association between moderate PA during pregnancy and prenatal anxiety was found in this analysis (z = −2.62, p < 0.01; ES = −0.46, 95% CI = −0.80, −12, I2 = 84%, Pheterogeneity = 0.001). The second MA included eight studies in which measures both before and after a PA intervention were reported. The findings of this analysis revealed a positive association between exercise practice during pregnancy and a decrease in prenatal anxiety scores (z = −3.39, p < 0.001; ES = −0.48, 95% CI = −0.76, −0.20, I2 = 71%, Pheterogeneity = 0.001). Supervised PA during pregnancy could prevent and reduce prenatal anxiety and anxiety symptoms.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".