Effects of breathing patterns and light exercise on linear and nonlinear heart rate variability
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
Despite their use in cardiac risk stratification, the physiological meaning of nonlinear heart rate variability (HRV) measures is not well understood. The aim of this study was to elucidate effects of breathing frequency, tidal volume, and light exercise on nonlinear HRV and to determine associations with traditional HRV indices. R-R intervals, blood pressure, minute ventilation, breathing frequency, and respiratory gas concentrations were measured in 24 healthy male volunteers during 7 conditions: voluntary breathing at rest, and metronome guided breathing (0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 Hz) during rest, and cycling, respectively. The effect of physical load was significant for heart rate (HR; p < 0.001) and traditional HRV indices SDNN, RMSSD, lnLFP, and lnHFP (p < 0.01 for all). It approached significance for sample entropy (SampEn) and correlation dimension (D2) (p < 0.1 for both), while HRV detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) measures DFAα1 and DFAα2 were not affected by load condition. Breathing did not affect HR but affected all traditional HRV measures. D2 was not affected by breathing; DFAα1 was moderately affected by breathing; and DFAα2, approximate entropy (ApEn), and SampEn were strongly affected by breathing. DFAα1 was strongly increased, whereas DFAα2, ApEn, and SampEn were decreased by slow breathing. No interaction effect of load and breathing pattern was evident. Correlations to traditional HRV indices were modest (r from -0.14 to -0.67, p < 0.05 to <0.01). In conclusion, while light exercise does not significantly affect short-time HRV nonlinear indices, respiratory activity has to be considered as a potential contributor at rest and during light dynamic exercise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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