Cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity is improved in children with high blood pressure after a psychosocial intervention (852.1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a Leisure and Well‐Being Model (LWM) psychosocial intervention on blood pressure (BP) regulation in children. Children with consistent BP 蠅 95th percentile and <90th percentile were grouped into high (HBP) and normal blood pressure (NBP) groups, respectively. Anthropometric data were collected along with five minutes of supine beat‐by‐beat BP and R–R interval. High frequency (HF; 0.15‐0.5 Hz) and low frequency (LF; 0.05‐0.15 Hz) power spectral indices were computed and transfer function analysis for the LF region was used to calculate baroreflex sensitivity (BRS). Pre and post‐test measures were taken one year apart. Results from 60 children (43 NBP, 17 HBP) indicated a three‐way interaction between intervention, BP status (NBP or HBP) and time (year 1 to year 2) independent of BMI (p=0.036). HBP participants receiving the intervention demonstrated an improvement in BRS from year 1 (11.4 ± 5.4 ms/mmHg) to year 2 (17.4 ± 8.5 ms/mmHg) compared to the HBP participants that did not receive the intervention (15.3 ± 8.5 ms/mmHg to 13.4 ± 6.5 ms/mmHg). These findings demonstrate that a LWM psychosocial intervention had a positive impact on BP regulation in children with elevated BP. These findings provide evidence of the importance of psychosocial determinants on autonomic regulation of BP in children. Grant Funding Source : Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario
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".