Association between heart rate recovery after exercise and renal function in patients referred for treadmill exercise test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Heart rate recovery (HRR) is a marker of parasympathetic activity recovery after exercise, and it is associated with cardiovascular mortality and total mortality. Impaired renal function is also associated with cardiac mortality. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between HRR after exercise and renal function in patients referred for a treadmill exercise test. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a regional hospital in southern Taiwan. Patients who completed a symptom-limited treadmill exercise test from January 2015 to February 2018 were recruited. Before the treadmill exercise test, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire on the past disease history and lifestyle factors. Serum creatinine measurement within two years prior to or after the date of the treadmill exercise test of the patients was also obtained from the medical records for these patients. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated. Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between one-minute HRR and eGFR. RESULTS: A total of 2,825 patients completed the treadmill exercise test, and serum creatinine measurement was identified from medical records for 2,153 patients (76.2%). Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that a lower eGFR was significantly associated with lower one-minute HRR (P< 0.001), adjusting for other significant independent factors, including age, waist circumference, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and smoking. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional observational study, a lower eGFR was significantly and independently associated with decreased one-minute HRR, suggesting that parasympathetic activity recovery after exercise could be impaired by a decrease in renal function.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".