Influence of Physical Activity during Pregnancy on Birth Weight: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birth weight is a marker that is often referred to determine newborn health, potential growth trajectories and risk of future disease. Accordingly, interventions to promote appropriate and healthy birth weight have been extensively studied and implemented in pregnancy. In particular, physical activity in pregnancy is recommended to promote appropriate fetal development and newborn birth weight. This systematic review and meta-analyses aimed to summarize the effect of physical activity during pregnancy specifically from randomized controlled trials on the following outcomes: birth weight, macrosomia, low birth weight, being large for the gestational age, and being small for the gestational age (Registration No.: CRD42022370729). 63 studies (16,524 pregnant women) were included. There was a significant negative relationship between physical activity during pregnancy and macrosomia (z = 2.16; p = 0.03; RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.63, 0.98, I2 = 29%, Pheterogeneity = 0.09). No other significant relationships were found. Promoting physical activity during pregnancy may be an opportune time to reduce the risk of future chronic disease, such as obesity, through the prevention of macrosomia and the promotion of appropriate birth weights.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".