Determination of minimal recording period to assess resting heart rate variability during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, resting heart rate variability (rHRV) is measured for 10 min using the last 5 min for analyses (e.g., criterion period). It is unknown whether the measurement period can be shortened in pregnant women as there are currently no established standards. We aimed to compare shorter time segments (e.g., from the 1st to 10th minutes) of the parasympathetic index natural logarithm transformation of root mean square of successive R–R differences (Ln rMSSD) with the criterion period in pregnant and nonpregnant women. Twelve pregnant (age: 30.8 ± 3.4 years; gestational age: 20.1 ± 5.0 weeks) and 15 nonpregnant women (age: 29.8 ± 4.0 years) were included. rHRV was measured using a portable heart rate monitor for 10 min while sitting. Ln rMSSD difference/agreement between shorter time segments and criterion period was analyzed. The result observed between the 4th–5th minutes was the shortest time segment not different from/highly agreed with the criterion period in pregnant women (difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: −0.10 [−0.22 to 0.02]/bias ± 1.96 × SD: −0.06 [−0.38 to 0.25]). In nonpregnant women, the 2nd–3rd-minute segment was the shortest with similar results (difference [95% CI]: −0.04 [−0.15 to 0.07]/bias ± 1.96 × SD: −0.03 [−0.39 to 0.32]). The Ln rMSSD was found to be stable from the 5th–10th minutes and the 3rd–10th minutes in pregnant and nonpregnant women, respectively. A shortened rHRV assessment can increase its applicability in clinical/exercise-training settings. Novelty Ln rMSSD can be measured for 5 min in pregnant women, with the last 1-min segment analyzed. The last 1-min segment from 3 min can be used for rHRV measurement in nonpregnant women. The shortened rHRV assessment can facilitate its applicability in clinical/exercise-training settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".