MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Physiological and haemodynamic differences between peak exercise blood pressure and blood pressure-power output slope in healthy women

2023· article· en· W4388600447 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Foulkes, Kristel Janssens, Erin J. Howden, Mark J. Haykowsky, Imogen Wallace, Rachel E. Climie, André La Gerche

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHealth and Medical Research FundWorld Cancer Research Fund
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCardiologyCardiorespiratory fitnessInternal medicineStroke volumeCardiac outputHemodynamicsHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A hypertensive response to exercise (HRE) is considered indicative of increased arterial stiffness (1). However, HRE is common in individuals with high cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) (2), which we hypothesize is due to increased stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output (Qc). Purpose This study compared differences in CRF and peak-exercise SV (SVpeak) and Qc (Qcpeak) according to absolute and workload-indexed definitions of exercise hypertension in women. Methods Women free of overt CVD (n=142; 52±8years, BMI: 26.3±4.5kg/m2) underwent exercise cardiac magnetic resonance to quantify SVpeak and Qcpeak, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing to quantify peak VO2, power output (PO) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) responses. SBP-PO slope was determined using linear regression of SBP and PO values obtained every 2-minutes throughout exercise. HRE was defined as peak SBP ≥190mmHg (3), and elevated SBP-PO slope was defined as a slope >90th percentile for sex and age based on previously published values (4). Results 51% and 23% of the cohort met criteria for HRE and elevated SBP-PO slope, respectively, with 16% meeting both criteria. HRE was associated with higher VO2peak (2.03±0.53 vs 1.83±0.44 L/min, P=0.015), peak PO (191±66 vs 167±51 Watts, P=0.014), SVpeak (109±27 vs 98±19 mLs, P=0.008), and Qcpeak (15.1±3.3 vs 13.9±2.8 L/min, P=0.023). In contrast, elevated SBP-PO slope was associated with lower VO2peak (1.57±0.36 vs 2.04±0.48 L/min), peak PO (135±34 vs 192±60Watts) SVpeak (88±13 vs 108±24 mLs) and Qcpeak (12.5±1.8 vs 15.1±3.1 L/min; P<0.001 for all). Overall, the group with HRE and elevated SBP-PO slope had the lowest physical capacity, VO2peak and haemodynamic response to exercise (Figure 1A-D), whilst the opposite trend was seen for those with a HRE and a normal SBP-PO slope. All results remained significant (P<0.05) after adjustment for age, BMI, resting SBP and menopausal status (pre vs peri/post-menopausal). Conclusion Contextualising exercise SBP responses against measures of PO better accounts for confounding from increased Qcpeak, and may improve identification of women with increased arterial stiffness.Figure 1A-D

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→