Physical Activity and Self-Perception of Mental and Physical Quality of Life during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-perception of health status (quality of life) is considered one of the best indicators of health and well-being. However, during pregnancy, it could be impacted not only by physiological and anatomical changes, but by poor lifestyle habits like high sedentary behaviour or bad nutrition. This study assesses the effects of physical activity RCT interventions during pregnancy on both mental and physical components of quality of life. A systematic review and two meta-analyses were performed (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022370467). Of the 207 articles captured both in English and Spanish, seven articles were deemed eligible for inclusion. The two analyses performed found that physically active pregnant women had better scores of mental self-perception of quality of life (z = 2.08, p = 0.04; SMD = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.67, I2 = 76%, Pheterogeneity = 0.0004) and in physical self-perceived health status (z = 2.19, p = 0.03; SMD = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.63, I2 = 71%, Pheterogeneity = 0.002) compared to control group pregnant women. Physical activity interventions could potentially increase mental and physical self-perception of quality of life during pregnancy.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".