The Effect of Trait Rumination on Adaptation to Repeated Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Exaggerated and prolonged cardiovascular responses to mental stress have been implicated in the etiology of hypertension. Rumination may play a role in the maintenance or reactivation of cardiovascular responses to mental stress and prevent cardiovascular adaptation or create sensitization on reexposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of trait rumination on patterns of cardiovascular response adaptation after repeated exposure to a mental stressor. METHODS: Cardiovascular data were collected from 82 undergraduate women during a baseline period and during a 5-minute emotional recall task on two separate occasions. Trait rumination was assessed using the Stress-Reactive Rumination Scale. RESULTS: A series of session (Sessions 1 and 2)-by-trait rumination general linear model repeated-measures analyses of covariance revealed several session-by-trait rumination interactions, such that participants who displayed higher levels of trait rumination showed less SBP (partial η(2) = 0.83, p = .01), diastolic blood pressure (partial η(2) = 0.84, p = .01), and heart rate (partial η(2) = 0.82, p = .02) adaptation to the laboratory mental stress task at the second exposure relative to those with lower levels of trait rumination. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that trait rumination may contribute to sustained increases in blood pressure by influencing adaptation to mental stress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".