The impact of physical activity on mortality in patients with high blood pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity has been shown to be beneficial for the prevention and management of hypertension. In the general population, physical activity has been shown to decrease mortality. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and synthesize the literature examining the impact of physical activity on mortality in patients with high blood pressure (BP). METHODS: An extensive search was conducted by two independent authors using Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases (between 1985 and January 2012) and manual search from the reference list of relevant articles. Inclusion criteria were as follows: longitudinal design with minimum 1-year follow-up; hypertensive status of the cohort was indicated; and BP, physical activity, and mortality were measured. RESULTS: Six articles evaluating a combined total of 48 ,448 men and 47 ,625 women satisfied the inclusion criteria. Cardiovascular and/or all-cause mortality were shown to be inversely related to physical activity in all studies. For example, patients with high BP who participated in any level of physical activity had a reduced risk (by 16-67%) of cardiovascular mortality, whereas a greater than two-fold increase in risk of mortality was noted in nonactive individuals. However, activity classification and parameters, such as frequency, duration, intensity, and volume, as well as BP status, were not consistent across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Regular physical activity is beneficial for reducing mortality in patients with high BP. More research is needed to establish the impact of specific kinds of physical activity and whether any differences exist between sexes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".