Comparison of inspiratory muscle strength and aerobic exercise training and detraining on blood pressure in hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated the effectiveness of inspiratory muscle strength training (IMST) as a time-efficient alternative to widely recommended aerobic exercise (AE) for reducing and maintaining blood pressure in hypertensive patients.Methods: Twenty-eight hypertensive patients (aged 61 ± 7 years) were randomly assigned to IMST (n = 14) and AE (n = 14) groups.The IMST performed 30 breaths/session at 75% of maximal inspiratory pressure (PI max ), totaling about 8 minutes, 5 days/week.The AE group exercised at 70% of heart rate reserve for 30 minutes/session, 5 days/week.Both supervised interventions lasted 8 weeks, followed by a 4-week detraining period.Brachial and central systolic blood pressure (SBP) were taken at baseline, 8-week post-intervention, and post-detraining.Results: The mean (standard deviation) change in brachial SBP from baseline to 8 week post-intervention significantly decreased in both the IMST group [-9.1 (12.1) mmHg, P = 0.01] and the AE group [-6.2 (7.2) mmHg, P = 0.01], with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.46).Central SBP also significantly reduced in the IMST group [-9.0 (11.9) mmHg, P = 0.01] and in the AE group [-5.7 (6.2) mmHg, P = 0.01], with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.37).However, the IMST group did not show significant persistence in SBP reduction, whereas the AE group did.Conclusions: Both IMST and AE effectively reduced brachial and central BP after 8-week interventions in hypertensive patients.While IMST presents a time-efficient adjunctive option to AE, its long-term effectiveness remains uncertain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".