Intensity and frequency of physical activity and high blood pressure in adolescents: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite limited evidence on the association between physical activity (PA) and blood pressure (BP) in youth, experts recommend that adolescents engage regularly in moderate-to-vigorous PA. We examined the relationships between PA intensity and frequency and the likelihood of having high BP in a population-based cohort of adolescents from Montréal, Canada. PA was self-reported every 3 months from grade 7 to 11, and BP was measured at ages 12.8, 15.2, and 17.0 years on average. We analyzed data from 993 participants (mean [SD] age = 16.0 [1.0], 51.6% female) with BP data at ages 15.2 and/or 17.0 years, using pooled ordinal logistic regression. BP (normal/elevated/hypertensive range) was the outcome, and past-year PA intensity and frequency were potential predictors. Eight percent of participants had elevated BP (120-129/<80), and 3.2% had BP in the hypertensive range (≥130/≥80). Participants engaged in a median (interquartile range) of 7.0 (4.5, 9.3) and 5.5 (2, 10.8) moderate and vigorous PA sessions/week, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, mother's education, use of alcohol and cigarette consumption, engaging in PA more intense than light during the previous year was associated with a lower odds of having BP in the hypertensive range (ORs [95% CIs] = 0.93 [0.88, 0.97] to 0.97 [0.94, 0.99]). The relationships were not altered by adjusting for BMI. Our findings support recommendations that adolescents engage in at least moderate PA on a regular basis to prevent development of BP in the hypertensive range.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".