Exaggerated blood pressure response to exercise in athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of exercise-induced exaggerated blood pressure (BP) response in endurance athletes is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess the hemodynamic parameters and metabolic profile in athletes with an exaggerated BP response to exercise. METHODS: Forty-four endurance athletes underwent a maximal exercise test, a 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, a 24-h Holter assessment, and sampling of blood on two occasions: (a) during intense training and (b) following 3 weeks without training. RESULTS: During the training period, 11 athletes showed an exaggerated BP response to exercise, whereas seven of these 11 athletes also showed an exaggerated BP response during the resting period. Elevation in systolic BP was greater in athletes with an exaggerated BP response than athletes with a normal BP response to exercise (resting: 84 ± 22 vs. 60 ± 18 mmHg, P = 0.02; training: 100 ± 21 vs. 70 ± 18 mmHg, P = 0.004). During the training period, athletes with an exaggerated BP response to exercise showed higher systolic BP values on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (136 ± 15 vs. 118 ± 8 mmHg, P = 0.02). During the resting period, athletes with an exaggerated BP response to exercise had lower apolipoprotein-A1 (1.3 ± 0.1 vs. 1.5 ± 0.2 g/l, P = 0.009), and higher SDNN (259 ± 47 vs. 209 ± 52 ms, P = 0.03) and pNN50 (0.4 ± 0.1 vs. 0.3 ± 0.1%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: These observations may represent the first sign of a slight metabolic disturbance associated with vascular wall abnormalities, although the parameters remain within normal values.
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".