Effect of Self‐Reported Anxiety Levels on Blood Pressure Responses to Slow Breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety, an emotion involved in the development and presentation of anxiety disorders, is linked to elevated blood pressure (BP) which may contribute to the increased cardiovascular disease risk observed in individuals diagnosed with anxiety disorders. Slow breathing (SB), defined as a respiration rate below 10bpm, has been implemented successfully to reduce BP in several clinical populations. However, to the best of our knowledge, the efficacy of SB has yet to be investigated in individuals with anxiety. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare BP responses to an acute bout of SB between individuals with moderate to severe anxiety and individuals with no or mild levels of anxiety. We hypothesized that individuals with moderate/severe anxiety levels would exhibit greater SB‐induced decreases in BP compared to individuals with no/mild anxiety levels. We assessed 14 young (18‐25 years old) lean (body mass index < 24.9kg/m 2 ) non‐smoking individuals with moderate/severe anxiety levels (n=7), as well as age‐ and body mass index‐matched individuals with no/mild anxiety levels during 15‐mins of rest and during 15‐mins of device‐guided SB (RESPeRATE). Anxiety levels were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, in which participants with a score of at least 8 were categorized as having a moderate/severe anxiety score (ANX) and individuals with scores less than 8 were classified as having no/mild anxiety levels (CTRL). Respiratory patterns were monitored via respitrace strain gauge. Beat‐by‐beat BP was measured using finger photoplethysmography calibrated to values obtained from manual sphygmomanometry. Respiratory and systolic BP (SBP) data were extracted averaged across 5‐mins of steady state rest and during the final 5‐mins of SB; differences between ANX and CTRL were evaluated using unpaired t‐tests. Despite similar resting SBP between ANX and CTRL (111.28 ± 11.40 vs 109.39 ± 7.05mmHg; p=0.75), the SBP response to SB differed between ANX and CTRL (‐2.18 ± 4.84 vs 3.57 ± 4.47mmHg; p=0.04). In fact, ANX experienced a clinically meaningful SB‐induced reduction in BP (defined as a change greater than or equal to 2 mmHg) that was absent in CTRL. Interestingly, resting respiration rates were higher in ANX than CTRL (13.33 ± 4.07 vs 7.74 ± 2.18bpm; p<0.01), and reductions in respiration rate during SB were greater in ANX than CTRL (‐9.27 ± 3.74 vs ‐2.66 ± 2.19bpm; p<0.01). Taken together, in a young and relatively healthy cohort of individuals with a range of self‐reported anxiety levels, it appears that SB is effective in lowering SBP in individuals with moderate or high levels of anxiety but has no effect in individuals reporting no or low levels of anxiety. Thus, SB may be an effective intervention to reduce BP in individuals with high anxiety levels, which may have long‐term implications in the treatment of elevated BP and reduction of cardiovascular disease risk in individuals diagnosed with anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".