Oral glucose tolerance test reduces arterial baroreflex sensitivity in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although postprandial decreases in blood pressure are a common cause of syncope in the older adult population, the postprandial effects of the oral glucose tolerance test on blood pressure and the arterial baroreflex remain poorly characterized in older adults. Therefore, arterial blood pressure and the arterial baroreflex were studied in 19 healthy older adults (mean age 71.7 +/- 1.1 years) who were given a standardized oral glucose load (75 g) or an isovolumetric sham drink during 2 separate sessions. All measures were taken for 120 min after treatment. Baroreflex function was assessed by using the spontaneous baroreflex method (baroreflex sensitivity, BRS). Subjects demonstrated a decrease in BRS after oral glucose that was not seen in the placebo session (two-way analysis of variance, p = 0.04). There was no significant change in systolic, mean, or diastolic blood pressure; together with a drop in BRS, this resulted in a significant tachycardia post glucose (two-way analysis of variance, p < 0.001). We conclude that healthy older adults can successfully maintain blood pressure during an oral glucose tolerance test despite a decrease in arterial BRS. Decreased BRS resulted in a tachycardic response to glucose.
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) | 0.001 | 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".