MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096700625 · doi:10.2174/157340209787314351

Isometric Handgrip Effects on Hypertension

2009· article· en· W2096700625 on OpenAlexaff
Philip J. Millar, Amanda Paashuis, Neil McCartney

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Hypertension Reviews · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureIsometric exerciseIntensive care medicineDiseasePhysical therapyCardiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertension is estimated to affect 1 billion people worldwide, and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. The management of high blood pressure focuses on lifestyle modifications (i.e. diet, exercise, smoking cessation) and drug therapies. Despite these strategies, many patients are still unable to maintain or control their blood pressure within desired levels. Recent research has identified isometric handgrip (IHG) training as a potential therapeutic modality. Results demonstrate a hypotensive effect of IHG training in medicated and unmedicated patients. This novel therapy may be efficacious based on low associated costs and time requirements (33 min/week). The mechanisms coupled with the attenuations in resting blood pressure remain contentious. However, recent evidence has begun to suggest that beneficial modulation of the autonomic nervous system is responsible for the positive changes in blood pressure. While further IHG research is required, the prospect of a novel non-pharmacological therapy for hypertension has major public health implications. This review will summarize the previous literature, discuss future research directions, and describe clinical significance. Keywords: Blood pressure, hypertension, isometric 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Hypertension ReviewsSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207