Are hot tubs safe for people with treated hypertension?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with hypertension are commonly warned to check with a physician before using a hot tub, but there is little literature on which to base this advice. We compared symptoms, heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure in response to 10 minutes of hot-tub immersion in a group of patients with treated hypertension and in a control group normotensive subjects. METHODS: We recruited 21 patients (18 men and 3 women aged 43-76 years) with stable, treated hypertension and 23 control subjects (14 men and 9 women aged 19-83 years) without hypertension. They were studied, in mid-afternoon, at a public facility. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were measured at baseline, during immersion in a hot tub at 40 degrees C and for 10 minutes after immersion. We asked each subject to report any symptoms. RESULTS: None of the subjects reported dizziness, chest pain or palpitations. During immersion, systolic blood pressure fell in both groups, from a mean (and standard deviation [SD]) of 144 (17) mm Hg to 122 (18) mm Hg in the hypertensive group (p < 0.05) and from 130 (14) mm Hg to 110 (17) mm Hg in the control group (p < 0.05). It returned toward baseline within 10 minutes after the subjects left the hot tub. Diastolic blood pressure also fell, whereas heart rate was increased in both groups. The hypertensive group showed a slightly lower maximal increase in heart rate than the normotensive group (5 [SD 5] v. 13 [SD 10] beats/minute, p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: Immersion in a hot tub for 10 minutes lowers blood pressure in subjects with treated hypertension, but no more than in normotensive control subjects. Spending 10 minutes in a hot tub should be safe for most treated hypertensive patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".