DECREASE HEART RATE VARIABILITY IN PATIENTS WITH COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that heart rate variability (HRV), a measure of the autonomic nervous system modulation, is decrease in patients with COPD. METHODS: Seventeen patients (age: 66 ± 7 yrs [mean ± SD], FEV1 = 44 ± 13% pred) and 10 control subjects (age: 63 ± 3 yrs) performed a 24-hr ambulatory blood pressure and a 24-hr Holter monitoring to evaluate HRV. Three time-domain and three frequency domain were studied: standard deviation of normal RR intervals (SDNN), square root of the mean of squared differences between adjacent normal RR intervals (r-MSSD), percentage of differences between adjacent normal RR intervals exceeding 50 milliseconds (p-NN50), very low-frequency power (VLF, 0.01 to 0.04 Hz), low-frequency power (LF, 0.04 to 0.15 Hz), and high-frequency power (HF, 0.15 to 0.40 Hz). RESULTS: Mean resting and 24-hr blood pressure were respectively 142/73 ± 16/10 mmHg, 129/74 ± 10/7 mmHg in patients with COPD and 142/72 ± 18/9 mmHg, 130/76 ± 13/8 mmHg in normal subjects. There was no significant difference between patients with COPD and control subjects in resting and 24-hr blood pressure. However, all HRV indices were reduced in subjects with COPD compared to control subjects. CONCLUSION: Although, the clinical importance of these findings remains to be determined, the decrease in HRV in COPD paired for age and blood pressure may results in increase risk of arrhythmias in this population. Supported by local fond.Table: No Caption Available.
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 | 0.000 | 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".