Influence of Sex on Cardiovascular Reactivity Induced by Mental Work in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental work (MW) is known to increase cardiovascular reactivity in healthy adults and sex influences this response, as women seem to be more reactive than men. However, changes in cardiovascular reactivity induced by MW in children are not well described. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of MW on cardiovascular reactivity in children and whether sex influences cardiovascular responses induced by MW. METHODS: Heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP) and heart rate variability (HRV; SDNN, SDANN, rMSSD and LF/HF) were monitored during 60-min of MW (French class) compared to 60-min resting period in twenty-five healthy children (11 ± 1 years). Subjects were then divided into two groups according to their sex. The intensity of the cognitive demand related to the 60-min of MW was evaluated with an adapted version of the NASA Task-Load Index for children (VAS-100 mm). RESULTS: In the whole group, MW increased systolic BP (MW vs. rest; 99 ± 8 vs. 94 ± 7 mmHg; p < 0.01) and diastolic BP (65 ± 5 vs. 60 ± 5 mmHg; p < 0.01). Boys (n= 14) and girls (n= 11) had similar baseline characteristics (boys vs. girls; age: 11 ± 1 vs. 11 ± 1 years; p=0.02, body weight: 38.1 ± 7.1 vs. 41.1 ± 6.2 kg; p=0.27, height: 1.5 ± 0,1 vs. 1,5 ± 0,1 m; p=0,07). The intensity of the cognitive demand was comparable between groups (649 ± 93 vs. 620 ± 129 mm; p=0.53). The two groups had similar BP increases induced by MW (systolic BP: 3 ± 6 vs. 6 ± 3 mmHg; p=0.16, diastolic BP: 5 ± 4 vs. 3 ± 4 mmHg; p=0.32). MW did not influence HR and HRV (all: p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that 60-min of MW increases BP, but not HR and HRV, in healthy children. In addition, sex does not influence this response.
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".