MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319082006 · doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2022.102553

Recomendaciones prácticas sobre ejercicio físico durante el embarazo basadas en las principales guías de práctica clínica

2023· review· es· W4319082006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luz María Gallo-Galán, Miguel Ángel Gallo-Vallejo, J.L. Gallo-Vallejo

Bibliographic record

VenueAtención Primaria · 2023
Typereview
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetrics and gynaecologyPregnancyObstetricsGynecologyClinical PracticeFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Las principales guías de actividad física/ejercicio durante el embarazo recomiendan que todas las mujeres embarazadas sin contraindicaciones médicas u obstétricas se mantengan activas físicamente durante la gestación, con el objetivo de conseguir beneficios para su salud y, al mismo tiempo, reducir la posibilidad de complicaciones durante el embarazo. El objetivo de este artículo fue extraer las recomendaciones prácticas sobre ejercicio físico durante el embarazo, de interés para el médico de atención primaria (AP), de las guías de práctica clínica de tres sociedades internacionales de obstetricia y ginecología de reconocido prestigio y gran influencia internacional en este tema, dos de ellas pioneras en la elaboración de este tipo de recomendaciones: el Colegio Americano de Obstetricia y Ginecología y la Sociedad Canadiense de Obstetricia y Ginecología; y el Real Colegio de Obstetras y Ginecólogos de Australia y Nueva Zelanda, junto con la publicada por la Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia. The main guidelines for physical activity/exercise during pregnancy recommend that all pregnant women without medical or obstetric contraindications remain physically active during pregnancy, in order to achieve health benefits and, at the same time, reduce the possibility of complications during pregnancy. The objective of this article was to extract the practical recommendations on physical exercise during pregnancy, of interest to the primary care physician, from the clinical practice guidelines of three international societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology of recognized prestige and great international influence on this subject, two of them pioneers in the elaboration of this type of recommendations: the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada; and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, together with the one published by the Spanish Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtención PrimariaSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207