The Influence of Physical Activity during Pregnancy on Miscarriage—Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Miscarriage is an inability to complete the normal process of pregnancy and childbirth and represents a major concern for pregnant women that can be an emotionally devastating event. While it has been suggested that engaging in strenuous physical activity might be associated with an elevated risk of miscarriage, there is a recent systematic review that suggested that prenatal exercise is not associated with fetal mortality. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SR + MA) was to assess the effects of physical activity during pregnancy on the likelihood of experiencing a miscarriage (Registration No.: CRD42022370629). Thirteen randomized clinical trials (3728 pregnant women) were included. Meta-analyses were conducted with the dependent variable being the miscarriage ratio in each study. The total risk ratio (RR) sum was calculated using a random effects model. The I2 statistic was utilized to quantify the heterogeneity observed in the results. No significant association between exercise during pregnancy and the occurrence of miscarriage was found (RR = 0.83 95% CI = 0.83 (0.49–1.41); z = 0.69, p = 0.49; I2 = 0.00%, Heterogeneity p = 0.91). Results of the present SR + MA showed no increase in miscarriage risk in those who engaged in low- to moderate-intensity exercise compared to those who did not.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".