What Physical Fitness Component Is Most Closely Associated With Adolescents' Blood Pressure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine which of four selected physical fitness variables, would be most associated with blood pressure changes (systolic and diastolic) in a large sample of adolescents. This was a descriptive and cross-sectional, epidemiological study of 1,117 adolescents aged 14-19 years from southern Brazil. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were measured by a digital pressure device, and the selected physical fitness variables were body composition (body mass index), flexibility (sit-and-reach test), muscle strength/resistance (manual dynamometer), and aerobic fitness (Modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test). Simple and multiple linear regression analyses revealed that aerobic fitness and muscle strength/resistance best explained variations in systolic blood pressure for boys (17.3% and 7.4% of variance) and girls (7.4% of variance). Aerobic fitness, body composition, and muscle strength/resistance are all important indicators of blood pressure control, but aerobic fitness was a stronger predictor of systolic blood pressure in boys and of diastolic blood pressure in both sexes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".