Level of Physical Activity in Pregnant Populations from Different Geographic Regions: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the level of physical activity during pregnancy in different populations worldwide. An intensive search was carried out from February until May 2021. The inclusion criteria were original studies of healthy pregnant women, and the main study variable was the assessment of physical activity. A total of 110 out of 1451 studies were assessed for inclusion, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality, and for the risk of bias. The 44 analyzed articles were divided into 5 tables according to the characteristics of the intervention and the validated instrument used to measure physical activity (PA). A total of 59.09% of the studies indicated that participants had a low level of physical activity during pregnancy. In addition, the median quality score of the studies was 7.12, and 77.27% of the studies were cataloged as having a high-quality score. Although international guidelines recommend that women without a contraindication engage in prenatal physical activity, the results of the present study show that the level of PA is too low for women to achieve scientifically proven maternal-fetal benefits. Failure to achieve the recommended levels of weekly physical activity could pose significant risks to maternal well-being.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".