Exaggerated blood pressure response to exercise in athletes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it