Synergistic Effects of Low-Intensity Exercise Conditioning and β-Blockade on Cardiovascular and Autonomic Adaptation in Pre- and Postmenopausal Women With Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of a 12-week low-intensity exercise conditioning program (walking) on blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), rate-pressure product (RPP), and cardiac autonomic function were measured in 40 sedentary women with hypertension. Women were assigned to either an exercise group (n = 20) or a control group (n = 20), matched for β-blockade treatment. They underwent testing at the beginning and at the end of the 12-week study period in three conditions: supine rest, standing, and low-intensity steady state exercise. The exercise group participated in a 12-week, low-intensity walking program, while the control group continued with usual sedentary activity. Compared with the control group, women in the exercise group showed reductions in systolic and diastolic BP and RPP (i.e., the estimated cardiac workload). β-Blockers increased baroreflex sensitivity and lowered BP and HR in all participants; however, those in the exercise group showed the effects of both treatments: a greater reduction in HR and RPP. The combination of exercise training and β-blockade produces cardiac and autonomic adaptations that are not observed with either treatment alone, suggesting that β-blockade enhances the conditioning effects of low-intensity exercise in women with 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".