Blood pressure response to exercise in young athletes aged 10 to 18 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to determine arterial blood pressure response to exercise in young athletes. The study group comprised 711 young athletes (457 boys, 254 girls) aged 10 to 18 years (mean 13.41 ± 3.12 years) who had been training for an average of 7.62 ± 4.2 h per week for an average of 4.01 ± 2.5 years. Participants with elevated arterial blood pressure above the 90th percentile at rest were excluded from investigation. A symptom-limited, multistage exercise test to exhaustion was performed using a Monark cycle ergometer. Arterial blood pressure was measured with an aneroid manometer in the third minute of each stage of the test. Mean systolic arterial blood pressure during peak exercise was significantly higher in boys than in girls: 183.21 ± 27.97 mm Hg and 170.97 ± 21.4 mm Hg, respectively (p = 0.03). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that age and workload had significant effects on arterial blood pressure during the test. Systolic arterial blood pressure during the exercise can be described with the following equations: boys, SBPex (mm Hg) = -1.92 × age (years) + 0.55 × workload (W) + 120.84; girls, SBPex (mm Hg) = -0.88 × age (years) + 0.48 × workload (W) + 111.22. The study results describe reference values of arterial blood pressure during the exercise test. The presented equations and figures can help to assess whether the arterial blood pressure at each stage of the exercise test exceeds the normal range or not.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".