The Impact of Blood Pressure Dipping Status on Cognition, Mobility, and Cardiovascular Health in Older Adults Following an Exercise Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine whether a dual-task gait and aerobic exercise intervention differentially impacted older adults with normal blood pressure (BP) dipping status (dippers) compared to those with nondipping status (nondippers). Methods: This study was a secondary analysis involving participants (mean age = 70.3 years, 61% women) who attended a laboratory-based exercise intervention over a 6-month period (40 min/day and 3 days/week). Participants were assessed in measures of cognition, mobility, and cardiovascular health at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months (after a 6-month no-contact follow-up). Results: We observed improvements in cognition in both groups at 6 and 12 months, although no between-group differences were seen. Nondippers demonstrated superior improvements in usual gait velocity and step length after the exercise intervention compared to dippers. Dippers reduced daytime systolic BP at 6 and 12 months to a greater extent than nondippers. Discussion: BP dipping status at baseline did not influence exercise benefits to cognition but did mediate changes in mobility and cardiovascular health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".