Circadian Patterns of Heart Rate Turbulence, Heart Rate Variability and Their Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart rate variability (HRV) is an established tool for studying cardiac autonomic activity over time, while heart rate turbulence (HRT) is a recent method used to assess autonomic dysfunction. However, there are different autonomic tones at different times of a day. This study aimed to examine the effect of circadian change of autonomic tone on heart rate turbulence and variability, and determine any relationship between them based on circadian variations. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour Holter recordings from 35 subjects with structurally normal heart were done, and HRV and HRT parameters of turbulence onset (TO) and turbulence slope (TS) were calculated. The 24-hour circadian patterns of these parameters and correlation analysis between them were performed. RESULTS: There were conspicuous diurnal oscillations in TS and HRV parameters, with less prominent variation in TO. TS and high frequency power (HF) shared the similar oscillation patterns in a day. Comparing HRT and HRV based on circadian variation, TS showed positive correlations with HF and low frequency power (LF) to a reasonable degree, while there was an inverse correlation between TS and LF/HF. CONCLUSIONS: Circadian change of TS values throughout the day is more prominent than TO. It also presents as an autonomic activity more than TO. The relationships between HRV and HRT persist independently on the time of a day.
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 | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".