MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post-Exercise Hypotension: Effects of Acute And Chronic Isometric Handgrip in Well-Controlled Hypertensives

2012· review· en· W1967503131 on OpenAlexaff
Cassandra Bartol, Kenji A. Kenno, Cheri L. McGowan

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIsometric exerciseBlood pressureInternal medicineCardiologyPhysical therapySession (web analytics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isometric handgrip (IHG) training lowers resting blood pressure (BP) in individuals with hypertension, yet the effects of a session of IHG exercise on BP are unknown. In normotensives, a single session of IHG elicits a reduction in BP immediately following exercise (post-exercise hypotension, PEH). Therefore, we tested the hypotheses that, in hypertensives, a session of IHG would elicit PEH and that this response would be attenuated with IHG training. Twenty hypertensives (all medicated) were randomly assigned to an IHG training group (n=11; resting BP: 114 ± 13/61 ± 12 mmHg; mean ± SD) or a non-exercising control group (n=9; 118 ± 14/68 ± 4 mmHg). The IHG training group performed four 2-minute IHG contractions at 30% of maximal voluntary effort, three times per week for 8 weeks. BP was assessed (brachial artery oscillometry) prior to and for 22 hours following a session of IHG, before, during, and after the post-training period. At baseline, BP was not reduced following an IHG session in either group. These findings of which were upheld at mid- and post-training time points (all p ≥ 0.05). In conclusion, an IHG session does not elicit PEH in medicated hypertensives, and this does not change with chronic exposure to the IHG stimulus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207