Effects of aerobic exercise and drug therapy on blood pressure and antihypertensive drugs: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although aerobic exercise has been shown to lower blood pressure (BP) in human beings, its additive BP-reducing effect on antihypertensive drug therapy seems to have been investigated in only laboratory animals. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effects of aerobic dance combined with antihypertensive drugs on BP and number of antihypertensive drugs in individuals with hypertension. METHODS: This open label randomised-controlled trial involved new-diagnosed male and female individuals with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension after at least four weeks of treatment. They were randomly assigned to drug therapy (Normoretic: Hydrochlorothiazide + amiloride hydrochloride, and Amlodipine) (control: n=33) and aerobic dance combined with drug therapy (exercise: n=30) groups. Intervention in each group lasted 12 weeks. BP was measured at baseline and during and pos-intervention. Number of antihypertensive drugs was recorded post-intervention. RESULTS: There were significant reductions in SBP at some periods of the intervention in the exercise group (p=0.000 to 0.002) and control group (p=0.001 to 0.002), and significant difference in DBP at some periods of the intervention in exercise group (p=0.000 to 0.003) and control group (p=0.000 to 0.001). SBP (p=0.066) and DBP (p=0.100) did not differ between the two groups post-12-week intervention. The BP control rates were similar between the exercises (56.7%) and control (35.5%) groups (p=0.075). Similarly, between-group difference in the number of drugs was not significant (p=0.511). CONCLUSION: This preliminary report demonstrates the tendency of aerobic dance to enhance BP control in individuals on two antihypertensive drugs without BP control.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".