To Be Active or to Stop? A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study Exploring Provider Advice and Patient Fears Surrounding Physical Activity in Pregnancies Complicated by Fetal Growth Restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise guidance for women with pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction (FGR) is vague, despite the fact that physical activity during pregnancy improves placental development, placental blood flow, and encourages healthy fetal growth. The goal of this study is to test the hypothesis that women with pregnancies complicated by FGR are fearful of physical activity and are being given unclear or limited advice from healthcare providers. Participants (N = 78) (women who delivered an infant diagnosed with FGR within the past 5 years) took an electronic survey including demographic information, pregnancy information, provider advice recall, and other health-related information relevant to growth-restricted pregnancies. Quantitative and qualitative (post-positivism paradigm) methods were employed to analyze the data. When asked specifically about how the FGR diagnosis impacted their activity levels, nearly 50% of participants said the diagnosis led them to decrease their activity levels. Participants reported that healthcare providers who do discuss activity with pregnant patients with FGR suggest low-intensity activities or ceasing activity, although the majority of providers did not discuss activity at all. More fears surrounding physical activity were reported post-FGR diagnosis, including worrying about fetal growth and development and causing fetal harm when engaging in physical activity.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".