Exercise-induced exaggerated blood pressure response in men with the metabolic syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Abnormalities in the autonomic nervous system in the presence of insulin resistance may be involved in the pathophysiology of obesity-associated hypertension. We evaluated the association between exercise-induced exaggerated blood pressure (BP) response [exercise-induced hypertension (EIH)] and heart rate variability (HRV) and insulin resistance in men with metabolic syndrome (MetS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight resting normotensive men with MetS underwent a maximal symptom-limited treadmill test. BP was measured after a 5-min rest (anticipatory BP) every 3 min during exercise and during the recovery period. EIH was defined as maximum systolic BP of 220 mmHg or higher and/or maximum diastolic BP of 100 mmHg or higher. Insulin resistance was estimated using HOMA-IR. Each participant underwent a 3-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). HRV was derived from a 24-h Holter. RESULTS: About half of the participants (52%) presented EIH. Resting BPs at baseline were 125 ± 10/83 ± 7 mmHg in participants with EIH and 120 ± 9/80 ± 6 mmHg (P = 0.01) in the group with normal BP response to exercise. OGTT glucose levels were higher in the group with EIH (all P < 0.04) as well as HOMA-IR compared with participants with normal BP response to exercise (P = 0.03). In terms of HRV, 24-h standard deviation of the RR intervals (SDNN) was lower in participants with EIH (P = 0.04) as well as 24-h daytime and night-time high frequency and low frequency (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Normotensive men with MetS but with EIH have greater insulin resistance as well as lower HRV parasympathetic and sympathetic indices. These features may be involved in the pathophysiology of EIH.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".