Immediate post-exercise blood pressure and arterial compliance in middle-aged and older normotensive females: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether immediate post-exercise systolic blood pressure (SBP) is associated with arterial compliance in middle-aged and older normotensive females. A total of 548 normotensive, non-frail females aged 55 years and older with no previous history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) participated in this cross-sectional study. Large and small arterial compliance were assessed by pulse wave analysis. Reduced arterial compliance was defined based on age and sex cutoffs. SBP was measured at rest and immediately following a 3-min moderate step-test. CVD risk factors were also assessed (e.g. resting systolic and diastolic BP, fasting glucose, triglycerides, cholesterol, body mass index). A total of 15.1% and 44.0% of the participants showed reduced large and small artery compliance, respectively. Immediate post-exercise SBP was associated with reduced large (OR 1.02 per 1 mmHg increase in post-exercise SBP, 95%CI 1.01-1.04; p = 0.010) and small (OR 1.02 per 1 mmHg increase in post-exercise SBP, 95%CI 1.00-1.03; p = 0.008) arterial compliance. Participants with highest immediate post-exercise SBP (quartile 4; i.e. ≥ 165 mmHg) showed increased odds ratios for reduced large (2.67, 95%CI 1.03-6.94; p = 0.043) and small (2.27, 95%CI 1.22-4.21; p = 0.010) arterial compliance compared to those with the lowest immediate post-exercise SBP (quartile 1; i.e. ≤ 140 mmHg), independent of other established CVD risk factors. Immediate post-exercise SBP following a brief moderate step-test seems to be able to discriminate reduced arterial compliance in middle-aged and older normotensive females.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".