Association Between Pregnancy-Related Hormones and Lumbopelvic Pain Characteristics in Pregnant Women: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this scoping review were (1) to document and quantify the potential associations between lumbopelvic pain characteristics and pregnancy-related hormones, and (2) to identify research approaches and assessment tools used to investigate lumbopelvic pain characteristics and pregnancy-related hormones. METHODS: The literature search was conducted in 6 databases (MEDLINE, Academic Search Complete, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Cochrane) from inception up to March 2020 and completed using search terms relevant to pregnant women, pregnancy-related hormones, and lumbopelvic pain. The risk of bias was assessed using the characteristics recommended by Guyatt et al. for observational studies. RESULTS: The search yielded 1015 publications from which 9 met the inclusion criteria. Relaxin was the most studied pregnancy-related hormone. An association between relaxin levels and lumbopelvic pain presence or severity was found in 4 studies, while 5 studies did not report an association between them. One study reported an association between relaxin and lumbopelvic pain presence or severity while 2 studies reported no association and were considered as having a low risk of bias. One study reported measures of estrogen and progesterone levels. It showed that progesterone levels were found to be significantly higher in pregnant women with lumbopelvic pain compared to those without, while estrogen concentrations were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The literature showed conflicting evidence regarding the association between pregnancy-related hormones and lumbopelvic pain characteristics in pregnant women. The assessment tools used to investigate lumbopelvic pain characteristics and pregnancy-related hormones are heterogeneous across studies. Based on limited and conflicting evidence, and due to the heterogeneity of assessment tools and overall poor quality of the literature, the association between pregnancy-related hormones and lumbopelvic pain characteristics is unclear.
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 | 0.012 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".