MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385603152 · doi:10.3390/jcm12155139

Influence of Physical Activity during Pregnancy on Type and Duration of Delivery, and Epidural Use: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4385603152 on OpenAlexaff
Dingfeng Zhang, Stéphanie-May Ruchat, Cristina Silva‐José, Javier Gil Ares, Rubén Barakat, Miguel Sánchez‐Polán

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyMeta-analysisPhysical activityCesarean deliveryObstetricsRelative riskFetusDuration (music)AnesthesiaConfidence intervalInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cesarean delivery may increase the need for anesthesia administration, thereby causing potential risks to both maternal and fetal health. This article aimed to investigate the effect of physical activity during pregnancy on the type of delivery, the duration of labor, and the use of epidurals (registration No.: CRD42022370646). Furthermore, 57 RCTs (n = 15301) were included showing that physical activity could decrease the risk of cesarean section (z = 3.22, p = 0.001; RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.79, 0.95, I2 = 37%, Pheterogeneity = 0.004), and 32 RCTs (n = 9468) showed significant decreases in instrumental delivery through performing physical activity (z = 3.48, p < 0.001; RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.76, 0.93, I2 = 0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.63). A significant decrease in the 15 RCTs’ (n = 4797) duration of first stage labor was found in physically active pregnant women (z = 2.09, p = 0.04; MD = −62.26, 95% CI = −120.66, −3.85, I2 = 93%, Pheterogeneity < 0.001) compared to those not active. Prenatal physical activity could decrease the risk of cesarean section and instrumental delivery and the duration of first stage labor.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.029
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.387
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207