Complex Segregation Analysis of Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Measured before and after a 20-Week Endurance Exercise Training Program: the Heritage Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex segregation analysis of baseline resting blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) and their responses to training (post-training minus baseline) were performed in a sample of 482 individuals from 99 white families who participated in the HERITAGE Family Study. Resting BP and HR were measured at baseline and after a 20-week training program. Baseline resting BP and HR were age-adjusted and age-BMI-adjusted, and the responses to training were age-adjusted and age-baseline-adjusted, within four gender-by-generation groups. This study also analyzed the responses to training in two subsets of families: (1) the so-called "high" subsample, 45 families (216 individuals) with at least one member whose baseline resting BP is in the high end of the normal BP range (the upper 95th percentile: systolic BP [SBP] > or = 135 or diastolic BP [DBP] > or = 80 mm Hg); and (2) the so-called "nonhigh" subsample, the 54 remaining families (266 individuals). Baseline resting SBP was influenced by a multifactorial component (23%), which was independent of body mass index (BMI). Baseline resting DBP was influenced by a putative recessive locus, which accounted for 31% of the variance. In addition to the major gene effect, which may impact BMI as well, baseline resting DBP was also influenced by a multifactorial component (29%). Baseline resting HR was influenced by a putative dominant locus independent of BMI, which accounted for 31% of the variance. For the responses to training, no familiality was found in the whole sample or in the nonhigh subsample. However, in the high subsample, resting SBP response to training was influenced by a putative recessive locus, which accounted for 44% of the variance. No familiality was found for resting DBP response to training. Resting HR response to training was influenced by a major effect (accounting for 35% of the variance), with an ambiguous transmission from parents to offspring.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".