MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220854323 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2021-0807

Effects of caffeinated energy drinks on cardiovascular responses during exercise in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2022· review· en· W4220854323 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nancy Grinberg, Karima Benkhedda, Jennifer Barber, Andrew D. Krahn, Sébastien La Vieille

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressureMedicineHeart rateAerobic exerciseRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisCardiologyRate pressure productPhysical exerciseInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of caffeinated energy drinks (CEDs) on the cardiovascular (CV) response to exercise has not been well described. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on the acute effects of CEDs on CV responses during dynamic, aerobic exercise in 296 healthy adult males (224) and females (72) in 21 randomized controlled trials. During exercise, there was an increase in heart rate (HR) (mean difference (MD), 2.86 bpm, 95% CI, 2.39–3.34 bpm, I 2 = 0%, p < 0.00001), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD, 9.02 mm Hg, 95% CI, 4.25–13.79 mm Hg, I 2 = 0%, p = 0.0002) with consumption of CEDs, compared with controls, but diastolic blood pressure was similar. Insufficient data were available to evaluate rate pressure product (HR × SBP) and exercise-induced arrhythmia. Though changes to HR during exercise were modest, the significant increase in exercise SBP highlights the importance of directly assessing CV effects of CEDs with exercise, especially in individuals prone to hypertension. Novelty: Exercise SBP in healthy adults is significantly increased during exercise with the consumption of CEDs compared with controls, despite limited data. The direct assessment of CV effects of CEDs with exercise highlights the particular relevance to individuals prone to hypertension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0770.010
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207