The acute effect of maximal exercise on arterial stiffness in adults with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared central and peripheral arterial stiffness response patterns between persons with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) of different age groups at rest and following a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). Fifteen young adults with and without IDD, and 15 middle-aged adults without IDD performed a CPET. Central and peripheral arterial stiffness were measured at rest and following CPET using estimates of carotid-femoral (cfPWV), carotid-radial (crPWV), and carotid-ankle (cdPWV) pulse wave velocity derived from piezoelectric mechano-transducers. cfPWV remained unchanged following CPET in adults with and without IDD but increased in middle-aged adults ( d = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.27–1.42 m·s–1, p = 0.005), whereas cdPWV was similarly reduced ( d = –0.77; 95% CI: –1.06 to –0.48 m·s–1, p < 0.001) in all groups. crPWV remained unchanged in all groups. These results were independent of exercise-related changes in mean arterial pressure. Overall group differences suggested that persons with IDD ( d = –1.78; 95% CI: –3.20 to –0.37 m·s–1, p = 0.009) and without IDD ( d = –1.84; 95% CI: –3.26 to –0.43 m·s–1, p = 0.007) had lower cfPWV than middle-aged adults. We found no evidence of early vascular aging and diminished vascular reserve following CPET in adults with IDD.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".