Association Between Gestational Weeks, Initial Maternal Perception of Fetal Movement, and Individual Interoceptive Differences in Pregnant Women: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interoception encompasses the conscious awareness of homeostasis in the body. Given that fetal movement awareness is a component of interoception in pregnant women, the timing of initial detection of fetal movement may indicate individual differences in interoceptive sensitivity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine whether the association between the gestational week of initial movement awareness and interoception can be a convenient evaluation index for interoception in pregnant women. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 32 pregnant women aged 20 years or older at 22-29 weeks of gestation with stable hemodynamics in the Obstetric Outpatient Department. Interoception was assessed using the heartbeat-counting task, with gestational weeks at the first awareness of fetal movement recorded via a questionnaire. Spearman rank correlation was used to compare the gestational weeks at the first awareness of fetal movement and heartbeat-counting task scores. RESULTS: A significant negative correlation was found between the gestational weeks at the first fetal movement awareness and heartbeat-counting task performance among all participants (r=-0.43, P=.01) and among primiparous women (r=-0.53, P=.03) but not among multiparous women. CONCLUSIONS: Individual differences in interoception appear to correlate with the differences observed in the timing of the first awareness of fetal movement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".