Impact of Physical Activity Interventions on High-Risk Pregnancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnant women with absolute contraindications may be advised against physical activity throughout pregnancy. In this context, bed rest elevates the short-term risk of neonatal complications, thereby exacerbating negative long-term effects on childhood development. The aim of the current study was to investigate the impact of various physical activity interventions during bed rest or activity restriction in pregnancy on factors such as birth weight, preterm birth, maternal hypertension, gestational age at delivery, and the incidence of cesarean sections. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review was designed. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022370875). Nine studies, with a total sample of 3173 women, from six countries on four continents were included. There were significant differences in the relationship between bed rest status and birth weight (Z = 2.64; p = 0.008) (MD = 142.57, 95% CI = 36.56, 248.58, I2 = 0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.45) favourable to active groups. No significant differences were found in other analyzed outcomes. Pregnant women who experience this problem must maintain a minimum of daily activity to alleviate these physiological complications and the medical field must understand the consequences of physical inactivity 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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".