The Effect of a 4 Week Isometric Handgrip Training on Changes of Peripheral Resistance and Blood Pressure in Women Suffering from Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: According to many studies, hypertension is considered as the second leading risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and cardiac infarction after smoking The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of four weeks of Isometric Handgrip (IHG) Training on peripheral resistance and hypertension among hypertensive women. Methods: 14 middle aged women, aged 40 to 55 years old, were randomly selected. The training program included 4 sets of 2 minute IHG training with 1 minute resting between each period, performed 3 days a week for four weeks. Doppler ultrasound method was used to measure the vascular resistance. Data were analyzed using paired t-test. Results: According to the results, there was a significant difference between systolic blood pressure (p=0.006) and diastolic blood pressure (p=0.001) after 4 weeks of training. However, no significant difference was observed in vascular resistance (p=0.66). Conclusion: These results demonstrate that IHG training can reduce blood pressure in the hypertensive patients 24 hours after the last training session. It is also revealed that reduced blood pressure is not always associated with reduced vascular resistance and other influential factors may play a role in this regard.
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) | 0.002 | 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".