Chest pain is inversely associated with blood pressure during exercise among individuals being assessed for coronary heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute and chronic increases in blood pressure have been related to decreases in pain perception. This phenomenon has been studied primarily using acute experimental pain stimuli. To extend the literature to naturalistic pain and in particular the problem of silent cardiac ischemia, this study examined the relationship between blood pressure and chest pain during exercise stress testing. Nine hundred seven (425 men, 482 women) individuals undergoing exercise stress testing for diagnosis of possible myocardial ischemia completed the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) immediately afterward and other questionnaires before and after testing. Blood pressure was measured before, during, and after exercise. Systolic blood pressure at the end of exercise was inversely related to a number of measures of pain such as total score on the MPQ. The relationship could not be explained by individual differences in exercise duration, medication use, sex, or other measured variable. In sum, the inverse relationship between blood pressure and sensitivity to pain that has been observed in other populations in experimental and naturalistic conditions was observed for chest pain during exercise. Blood pressure may contribute to episodes of silent ischemia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".