[PP.38.02] THE AMBULATORY HYPOTENSIVE EFFECT OF AEROBIC TRAINING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The effectiveness of regular exercise in decreasing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) is well-established. Our purpose was to assess the impact of both subject and physical activity program characteristics on ambulatory BP through a meta-analysis of the existing literature. Design and method: Three databases (PubMed, Embase, Web-of-Science) were searched using relevant terms and strategies. From 637 identified records, 37 studies met inclusion criteria: details about training intervention and participant characteristics, pre- and post-training ambulatory BP measurements, at home (HBPM) or during 24-h (ABPM). Results: The weighted mean difference was for 24-h systolic/diastolic ABPM (n = 847 participants): -4.06/-2.77 mmHg (95%CI: -5.19 to -2.93 / -3.58 to -1.97; P < 0.001), for daytime (ABPM or HBPM, n = 983): -3.78/-2.73 mmHg (95%CI: -5.09 to -2.47 / -3.57 to -1.89; P < 0.001) and nighttime ABPM periods (n = 796): -2.35/-1.70 mmHg (95%CI: -3.26 to -1.44 / -2.45 to -0.95; P < 0.001). Characteristics significantly influencing BP improvement were: an initial office BP > = 130/85 mmHg and diet-induced weight-loss. We found no differences in standardized mean difference (SMD) according to sex, age, or training characteristics (intensity, number of sessions, training duration) (Fig. 1).Conclusions: Antihypertensive effects of aerobic training assessed by ambulatory BP measurements appear significant and clinically relevant for both daytime and nighttime periods, in particular for participants with an office BP > = 130/85 mmHg.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.535 | 0.182 |
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".