Breathing Variability at Rest is Positively Associated With 24-h Blood Pressure Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has reported that inhibition of breathing can be observed in hypertensive patients at rest during the daytime, as well as in sleep at night. The present study hypothesized that the variability of breathing and end-tidal CO(2) (PetCO(2)) in seated women at rest is positively associated with their 24-h blood pressure level. METHODS: Breath-to-breath measures of breathing rate and tidal volume were recorded via inductive plethysmography in each of 54 women during two 20-min sessions of seated rest, and in 32 women during night time sleep. PetCO(2) was also recorded during these sessions via a respiratory gas monitor. Ambulatory blood pressure was recorded for 24 h between the two clinic sessions via oscillometry. RESULTS: Breath pauses >10 s were observed significantly more often in women in the upper than the lower tertile of 24-h systolic blood pressure. Breath-to-breath variability in breathing rate, tidal volume, and minute ventilation were greater in the higher blood pressure tertile women. Variability in PetCO(2) was also greater in high blood pressure tertile. These associations were independent of age, weight, and body surface area (BSA). Breathing variability was inversely correlated with heart rate variability (HRV). CONCLUSION: Greater variability in breathing at rest that is independent of metabolic activity characterizes women with elevated blood pressure. The linear association of breathing variability with 24-h blood pressure level is consistent with the hypothesis that intermittent breathing inhibition may predispose to the development of some forms of hypertension.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".