A Single Bout of Prolonged Sitting Augments Very Short-Term Blood Pressure Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More habitual time spent engaging in prolonged sedentary behaviors increases the risk of developing hypertension. Beat-by-beat systolic (SBPV) and diastolic blood pressure variability (DBPV) are more pronounced in persons with hypertension and may be an early manifestation of blood pressure dysregulation. We tested the hypothesis that a single bout of prolonged sitting augments very short-term SBPV and DBPV. The secondary aim was to explore sex differences in prolonged sitting-induced increases in SBPV and DBPV. METHODS: Thirty-three adults (22.9 ± 1.9 years; 17 females) completed a single, 3-hour bout of prolonged sitting with beat-by-beat arterial pressure determined at baseline, 1.5-hour, and 3-hour via finger photoplethysmography. RESULTS: There were no sex differences observed for baseline brachial SBP (males: 122 ± 10 mm Hg; females: 111 ± 9 mm Hg), SBPV (males: 1.87 ± 0.63 mm Hg; females: 1.51 ± 0.38 mm Hg), DBP (males: 68 ± 6 mm Hg; females: 66 ± 8 mm Hg), or DBPV (males: 1.40 ± 0.41 mm Hg; females: 1.27 ± 0.32 mm Hg) (all, P > 0.41). In the pooled sample, baseline SBPV (1.68 ± 0.54 mm Hg) remained unchanged after 1.5 hours (1.80 ± 0.60 mm Hg; P = 0.59) but increased after 3.0 hours (1.84 ± 0.52 mm Hg; P = 0.01). This post-sitting increase was driven by males (P = 0.009), with no difference observed in females (P = 1.00). Similarly, baseline DBPV (1.33 ± 0.36 mm Hg) was similar after 1.5 hours (1.42 ± 0.41 mm Hg; P = 0.72) but was increased at 3 hours (1.50 ± 0.34 mm Hg; P = 0.02). However, no sex differences in DBPV (all, P > 0.07) were observed across the time points. CONCLUSIONS: In young, normotensive adults, a single bout of prolonged sitting augmented beat-by-beat blood pressure variability, which may provide a link between uninterrupted sitting and the development of blood pressure dysregulation.
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".