Cardiovascular regulation during active standing orthostatic stress in older adults living with frailty: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is a relevant cardiovascular disorder associated with frailty and delayed cardiovascular regulatory responses, contributing to cardiovascular dysregulation. This dysregulation affects blood pressure (BP) control, increasing the risk of falls and mortality. This systematic review aimed to determine whether older adults living with frailty have impaired cardiovascular regulatory responses during active standing orthostatic stress. METHODS: MEDLINE (from 1946), PUBMED (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1963), and SCOPUS (from 2004) were systematically searched for studies on cardiovascular regulation during active standing orthostatic stress in older adults living with frailty. The selection of studies involved the following criteria: ≥ 60 years, OH classification, continuous monitoring of beat-by-beat BP, active standing, and frailty status. The nine-point Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the study quality. RESULTS: Of 7441 articles identified, 5 articles were included, but 3 independent data sets were extracted due to two studies reporting the same participants' cohort, resulting in an analysis of 726 participants (79±5 years, 41.7 % males). Frailty was associated with a greater drop in BP (-61 mmHg), blunted HR (Frail: 8 bpm; non-frail: 16 bpm), and longer recovery after active standing, occurring between 30-60 s instead of 0-30 s (healthy systems). OH prevalence ranged from 3 to 98 %, being higher in frail people. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults living with frailty experience a greater drop in BP, a blunted HR response, and prolonged recovery time following active-standing orthostatic stress. This cardiovascular dysregulation contributes to the highest prevalence of OH among frail individuals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".