Higher habitual lying time is inversely associated with vagal-related heart rate variability outcomes in younger adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) is a well-established noninvasive marker of autonomic cardiac control. We test whether time spent sitting (negatively) versus lying (positively) influences vagal HRV outcomes. HRV (10 min supine electrocardiogram) and free-living postures (dual-accelerometer configuration, 7 days) were measured in 31 young healthy adults (15♀, age: 23 ± 3 years). Habitual lying (66 ± 61 min/day), but not sitting time (558 ± 109 min/day), total sedentary time (623 ± 132 min/day), nor step counts (10 752 ± 3200 steps/day; all, p > 0.090), was associated with root mean square of successive cardiac interval differences (ρ = −0.409, p = 0.022) and normalized high-frequency HRV (ρ = −0.361, p = 0.046). These findings document a paradoxical negative impact of waking lying time on cardioautonomic function. Take home message Using a multi-accelerometer configuration, we demonstrated that more habitual waking time lying, but not sitting or total sedentary time, was associated with worse vagally mediated cardiac control.
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) | 0.002 | 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".