Correlation between maternal physical exercises during late pregnancy and infant motor development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correlation between maternal physical exercises during late pregnancy and infant motor development. Nikitha Rajendran1, Karen Furgal, PT, DPT, PCS2, Keri Esslinger, PhD3, Rachel Tinius PhD, ACSM-EP-C3 1 Gatton Academy of Math and Sciences, WKU, Bowling Green, KY 2 Department of Physical Therapy, WKU, Bowling Green, KY 3 Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY The relationship between maternal physical activity during late pregnancy and infant motor development has not been studied. Here we hypothesize that women who were physically active during pregnancy will have newborns with higher motor skill development at 4 months of age. Physical activity during late pregnancy (32-39 weeks) was assessed using Actigraph Link devices. Wrist-worn tri-axel accelerometers are a valid measure of physical activity-based energy expenditure in pregnant women. Data were collected for seven consecutive days at 30 Hz. The accelerometer output was sampled by a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter. The percentage of time spent sedentary, as well as the amount of time spent participating in different categories of physical activity ranging from light and moderate were calculated using algorithms corresponding to the following activity counts: sedentary: 0 - 99 counts/min, light: 100 - 759 counts/min, lifestyle: 760 - 1951 counts/min, moderate: 1952-5724 counts/min. In addition, potential confounders (e.g. amount of time infant spends in different positions, number of siblings, daycare environment, etc.) were assessed via surveys. The maternal physical activity levels during pregnancy and the AIMS scores in infants at 4 months has positively correlated. These results provide evidence to encourage pregnant women to be physically active throughout pregnancy in order to improve the motor development and performance of their child. These findings suggest maternal exercise as an effective and resourceful approach to improve maternal and infant health- as motor performance early in life is linked to improvements in cognitive function in childhood. In the coming months, the infant motor development using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), a validated test to assess motor control in infants at 4 months of age, will be performed by trained physical therapists and physical educators.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".