Ethnic difference in the rate pressure product recovery to exercise response with African Canadian and South Asian cardiac patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The rate pressure product (RPP) is a non-invasive assessment used to predict myocardial oxygen consumption and is defined as the product of heart rate and systolic blood pressure. Studies demonstrating its efficacy with exercise recovery have yielded positive outcomes. Unfortunately, many of the studies conducted are primarily within the European population. Given the lack of research and the difference in exercise responses to other ethnic groups, there is a need to evaluate the RPP in minorities. Objectives The study objectives were to 1) compare differences or similarities of low to moderate aerobic exercise to reduce blood pressure and HR in African Canadians and South Asians and 2) identify improvement in RPP values in the two groups. Methods One hundred sixty (80 African Canadians and 80 South Asians) with hypertension or related conditions were invited to participate in ten exercise sessions. All participants' blood pressure, heart rate, rate pressure product, pulse pressure, and mean arterial pressure were assessed. Results The study showed systolic blood pressure, and heart rate (< 0.05) but not the rate pressure product (p > 0.05) were significantly different between the two groups in pre and post-exercise conditions. While the exercise training improved participants' cardiac markers, the change between the groups was not significantly different. Conclusion Our findings align with other studies demonstrating exercise usefulness in lowering BP, but the RPP results were insignificant. The study also highlighted that a community-based exercise intervention could be helpful for specific populations, in this case, African Canadians and South Asians.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".