MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235559701 · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00940-6

Maximal exercise testing in late gestation: fetal responses

2000· article· en· W4235559701 on OpenAlexaff
A MacPhail

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestationFetusAnalysis of varianceGestational ageHeart rateRepeated measures designFetal heart ratePregnancyBradycardiaPhysical therapyObstetricsInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the fetal response to and safety of maximal maternal exercise in the third trimester. METHODS: Twenty-three active women with uncomplicated pregnancies (singleton gestations) underwent maximal exercise testing in late gestation using a progressive maximal cycle ergometer protocol. Fetal heart rate (FHR) responses were monitored and classified using National Institute of Child Health and Human Development guidelines. Statistical analyses involved use of the Student t test, repeated measures analysis of variance with Tukey-Kramer multiple comparisons posttest, and the chi(2) test. RESULTS: There was an increase in baseline FHR in the 20-minute posttest period compared with the 20-minute pretest period. There were significantly fewer accelerations in the second posttest 10-minute segment compared with the second pretest 10-minute segment. Variability was reduced in both posttest periods compared with the first 10-minute pretest period. Time to reactivity increased after testing. Mild tachycardia was noted in two tracings and bradycardia occurred in a fetus with previously undiagnosed growth restriction. There were no abnormal neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Maximal exercise testing in late gestation led to minimal changes in FHR. Fetal bradycardiac responses were not seen in appropriate for gestational age fetuses, suggesting that brief maximal maternal exertion for research or diagnostic purposes is safe in this group.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207