Timing is everything: Anticipatory stress dynamics among cortisol and blood pressure reactivity and recovery in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological states of anticipation modulate biological stress responsivity. While researchers generally investigate how subjective distress corresponds to the magnitude of stress reactivity, physiological recovery after acute stressors must also be considered when investigating disease vulnerabilities. This study assessed whether anticipatory stress would correspond to stress reactivity and recovery of salivary cortisol and blood pressure levels in response to a well-validated psychosocial stressor. Thirty participants (63% female; mean ± SEM age 45.4 ± 2.12 years) were exposed to the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) consisting of a public speech and mental arithmetic. Ten salivary cortisol samples and systolic and diastolic blood pressure recordings were collected at time points spanning 50 min before and up to 50 min after stress exposure. These data were transformed into parameters representing stress reactivity (area under the curve) and stress recovery (percent change). The Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal scale assessed anticipatory stress before exposure to the TSST. Our results revealed that increased anticipatory stress predicted increased stress reactivity for cortisol (p = 0.009) but not blood pressure. For stress recovery, increased anticipatory stress predicted greater decrements of cortisol concentration (p = 0.015) and blood pressure (p = 0.039), even when controlling for total systemic "output" by incorporating baseline activity. This efficient shutdown of stress responses would have otherwise been ignored by solely investigating reactive increases. These findings underscore the importance of measuring multiple dynamic parameters such as recovery when investigating physiological stress response patterns as a function of psychosocial factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".