Characteristics associated with responsiveness to isometric handgrip training in medicated hypertensive patients: secondary data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Isometric handgrip training (IHT) has been shown to reduce blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients. However, factors that predict responsiveness to IHT are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the patient characteristics associated with the antihypertensive response to IHT using a recommended statistical approach for evaluating interindividual responses. METHODS: Data from four randomized controlled trials were combined, totaling 81 patients undergoing IHT (48.8% women; 60 ± 11 years) and 90 control patients (45.6% women; 62 ± 12 years). IHT consisted of 4 × 2 min isometric contractions at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction, performed three times/week for 8-12 weeks. BP was measured at baseline and following IHT and control interventions. The interindividual variation was assessed by the standard deviation of the individual responses (SD ir ), and linear regression analyses were conducted to explore response predictors. RESULTS: IHT significantly decreased both SBP (-5.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.5 to -1.3 mmHg) and DBP (-2.8; 95% CI -5.1 to -0.6 mmHg). The interindividual variation of BP change was moderate for systolic (SD ir = 5.2 mmHg, 0.30 standardized units) and low for diastolic (SD ir = 1.7 mmHg, 0.15 standardized units). Sex, age, and BMI were not associated with the antihypertensive effect of IHT. However, a higher baseline SBP ( b = -0.467, P < 0.001) and absence of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers use ( b = 0.340, P = 0.001) were associated with greater BP reductions. CONCLUSION: IHT reduced BP in medicated hypertensive patients regardless of age, sex, and BMI. Patients with a higher baseline SBP and those not prescribed dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were more responsive to IHT.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".