MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322764116 · doi:10.3822/ijtmb.v16i1.771

Applying Scientific Rationale to the Current Perceptions and Explanations of Massage and Miscarriage in the First Trimester

2023· article· en· W4322764116 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Fogarty, Ruth Werner, Joanna L. James

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiscarriageMassageFirst trimesterCurrent (fluid)ObstetricsPerceptionPsychologyMedicineAlternative medicinePregnancyPhysicsGestationNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Miscarriage is a relatively common occurrence, impacting 8-15% of clinically recognised pregnancies, and up to 30% of all conceptions. The public perception of the risk factors associated with miscarriage does not match the evidence. Evidence indicates that there are very few modifiable factors to prevent miscarriage, and the majority of the time little could have been done to prevent a spontaneous miscarriage. However, the public perception is that consuming drugs, lifting a heavy object, previous use of an intrauterine device, or massage can all contribute to miscarriage. While misinformation about the causes and risk factors of miscarriage continues to circulate, pregnant women will experience confusion about what activities they can (and cannot) do in early pregnancy, including receiving a massage. Pregnancy massage is an important component of massage therapy education. The resources that underpin pregnancy massage coursework consist of educational print content that includes direction and caution that massage in the first trimester, if done 'incorrectly' or in the 'wrong' location, can contribute to adverse outcomes such as miscarriage. The most common statements, perceptions and explanations for massage and miscarriage cover three broad areas: 1) maternal changes from massage affects the embryo/fetus; 2) massage leads to damage of the fetus/placenta; and 3) aspects of the massage treatment in the first trimester initiate contractions. The goal of this paper is to use scientific rationale to critically consider the validity of the current perceptions and explanations of massage therapy and miscarriage. Whilst direct evidence from clinical trials was lacking, considerations of physiological mechanisms regulating pregnancy and known risk factors associated with miscarriage provide no evidence that massage in pregnancy would increase a patient's risk of miscarriage. This scientific rationale should be addressed when teaching pregnancy massage courses.

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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.344
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.344
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.031
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0140.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & PracticeSame topicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207