The Impact of beta blockade on the cardio-respiratory system and symptoms during exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beta blockers prolong life in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Negative chronotropic and inotropic effects carry the potential to adversely effect peripheral skeletal and airway smooth muscle contributing to further fatigue, dyspnea and exercise intolerance. Do beta-blockers reduce maximal power output (MPO), VO2 max, cardiorespiratory responses, increase the perceived effort required to cycle and breath during cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) and limit the capacity to exercise? Retrospective observational study of subjects performing CPET to capacity from 1988 to 2012. Subjects with and without beta-blockers were compared: baseline physiological characteristics, MPO, VO2 max, heart rate max, ventilation responses and perceived exertion required to cycle and breathe (modified Borg scale). Forward stepwise linear additive regression was performed with MPO as the dependent factor with height, age, gender, muscle strength, FEV1 and DLCO as independent contributors. 42,771 subjects were included 7,787 were receiving beta-blocker [mean age 61 yrs, BMI 28.40 kg/m2, 9% airflow obstruction (FEV1/FVC<0.7)] and 34,984 were not [mean age 51yrs, BMI 27.40 kg/m2, 11% airflow obstruction]. Heart rate was lower by 18.2% (95% C.I. 18.15–18.38) (p<0.0001) while Oxygen pulse (VO2/HR) was higher by 19.5% (95% C.I. 19.3–19.7) in those receiving beta blockers. Maximum power output (MPO) was 3.3% lower in those taking beta-blockers. The perceived effort required to cycle and breathe (mBorg) was 8% lower in those taking beta-blockers. Increases in oxygen pulse minimize the reduction in exercise intolerance and symptom handicap associated with beta-blockers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".