Changes in Autonomic Balance, Cardiac Parasympathetic Modulation, and Cardiac Baroreflex Gain in Older Adults Under Different Orthostatic Stress Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As we age, our autonomic function declines, resulting in altered autonomic balance during postural transitions. These changes can affect the dynamic interplay between sympathetic and parasympathetic modulation, compromising short-term compensatory responses to active standing. Objectives: This study aimed to compare heart rate variability (HRV) at baseline, cardiac parasympathetic modulation (CPM), and cardiac baroreflex gain (CRG) between younger adults (YA) and older adults (OA) following active standing orthostatic stress. A secondary objective was to analyze the incidence of orthostatic intolerance (OI) symptoms. Methods: Participants (n = 76) completed sit-to-stand and lie-to-stand maneuvers with continuous beat-to-beat blood pressure and heart rate (HR, electrocardiogram). HRV at baseline was analyzed in both time and frequency domains. CPM was measured by the HR 30:15 ratio on standing. CBG was determined as the ratio of HR and SBP changes (ΔHR/ΔSBP) at specific phase time points (30 s, 60 s, 180 s, and 420 s). Results: At baseline, OA showed reduced Standard Deviation of RR intervals (SDRR), Root Mean Square of Successive Differences (RMSSD), low-frequency (LF), and high-frequency (HF) power, and elevated LF/HF ratio (all p < 0.05), indicating a shift toward sympathetic dominance. During active standing orthostatic stress, OA demonstrated a lower HR30:15 ratio and CBG in later phases (phases 2–4) (all p < 0.05). Also, OA reported more symptoms (14%) of OI than YA (0%) (p = 0.041). Conclusions: These findings indicate that older adults have impaired autonomic function characterized by reduced HRV, CPM and CBG responses. These impairments lead to diminished autonomic regulation under active-standing orthostatic stress and a higher incidence of OI symptoms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".