IS INAPPROPRIATE HYPERTENSIVE RESPONSE TO EXERCISE TEST USEFUL TO SCREEN FOR HYPERTENSION IN COPD PATIENTS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously shown that the increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) during exercise test is much steeper in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared to healthy individuals matched for age. Inappropriate hypertensive response to maximal exercise (≥ 220/100 mmHg) has been associated with future development of hypertension. In the settings of a rehabilitation respiratory exercise program evaluation, exercise physiologist are often confronted with inappropriate high blood pressure (BP) response during exercise testing. PURPOSE We sought to evaluate if inappropriate hypertensive response to maximal exercise test is a reliable parameter as a screening tool for hypertension compared to office and 24-hr ambulatory BP. METHODS Twenty-three COPD patients (age: 65±7 years [mean±SD], FEVI: 40±15% predicted) performed a peak ergocycle exercise test and a 24-hr ambulatory BP monitoring. Resting BP was measured after a 15-minute resting period in supine position and maximal exercise BP was measured at the end of the peak exercise test. RESULTS Mean resting, exercise and 24-hr BP was respectively 145/73±16/11 mmHg, 231/102±24/17 mmHg and 129/75±10/8 mmHg. Sixty-one percent and 30% of patients with inappropriate hypertensive response to maximal exercise showed high BP on resting and 24-hr respectively. The association between exercise SBP and resting SBP was the following; r = 0.65, p < 0.01 but there is no relationship between exercise SBP and 24-hr SBP monitoring (r = 0.28, p = 0.19). CONCLUSION Thus, maximal exercise SBP may be a reliable index to predict office hypertension but not 24-hr high BP in patients with COPD. Supported in part by Le Fond de Recherche en Santé du Québec.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".