Getting the best GRIP on blood pressure control: Investigating a cost-effective isometric handgrip alternative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The World Health Organization emphasises the need for cost-effective alternative methods to lower blood pressure (BP). Endorsed nationally in HTN guidelines, isometric handgrip (IHG) training is an alternative method of BP control. The purpose of this study was to compare the BP, heart rate (HR) and rates of perceived exertion (RPE) responses between a bout of IHG training performed using the traditional computerized device and a more affordable, inflatable stress ball. METHODS: Twenty healthy adults performed one bout (4, 2-min isometric contractions, with 1-min rests between each contraction at 30% maximal voluntary contraction) of IHG training using the traditional computerized device, and one bout with the inflatable stress ball. BP, HR, and RPE were recorded. RESULTS: < 0.05). However, average RPE for both devices ranged between 5 and 6 indicating that participants were rating 30% of their MVC, consistent with previous work. DISCUSSION: The similar cardiovascular and psychophysical responses provide support for the potential use of this low individual- and provider-burden, cost-efficient IHG device, and lay the foundation for a future training study to test the hypothesis of benefit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".