Breaking boundaries: A chronology with future directions of women in exercise physiology research, centred on pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, females were excluded from clinical research due to their reproductive roles, hindering medical understanding and healthcare quality. Despite guidelines promoting equal participation, females are underrepresented in exercise science, perpetuating misconceptions about female physiology. Even less attention has been given to exercise in the pregnant population. Research on pregnancy and exercise has evolved considerably from the initial bedrest prescriptions but concerns about exercise risks during pregnancy persisted for many decades. Recent guidelines endorse moderate-intensity physical activity during pregnancy, supported by considerable evidence of its safety and benefits. Mental health during pregnancy, often overlooked, is gaining traction, with exercise showing promise in reducing depression and anxiety. While pregnancy guidelines recommend moderate-intensity physical activity, there remains limited understanding of optimal frequency, intensity, type and time (duration) for extremes like elite athletes or those with complications. Female participation in elite sport and physically demanding jobs is rising, but research on their specific needs is lacking. Traditional practices like bed rest for high-risk pregnancies are being questioned, as evidence suggests it may not improve outcomes. Historical neglect of gestational parents in research perpetuated stereotypes of female frailty, but recent years have seen a shift towards recognizing the benefits of an active pregnancy. Closing knowledge gaps and inclusivity in research are crucial for ensuring guidelines reflect the diverse needs of gestational parents. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to summarize the evolution of exercise physiology and pregnancy research along with future directions for this novel field.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".