Gender differences in vascular responses to carotid baroreflex stimulation (879.14)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationships between sympathetic nerve activity, arterial blood pressure and cardiac output are strikingly different in young men and women, and further modified by aging. We hypothesised that some of these differences may be mediated by altered baroreflex control of arterial pressure. Full baroreflex response curves are seldom constructed, particularly for vascular resistance responses, and possible gender differences in these responses are unclear. We, therefore, used a variable‐pressure neck collar system to deliver a range of positive and negative pressures to the carotid sinus in young men (n=5) and women (n=5). Beat‐to‐beat mean arterial pressure (MAP), R‐R interval, and brachial blood flow velocity (BBFV) were recorded noninvasively. From these data we constructed full cardiac and forearm vascular resistance (FVR=MAP/BBFV) baroreflex response curves. Gain, set point, threshold and saturation were calculated. Resting heart rates and blood pressures were similar in men and women. Cardiac and FVR baroreflex gains, threshold and saturation were also similar in men and women. The set point for the cardiac responses in women (105±10 mmHg) was greater than in men (77±7 mmHg, p<0.05); the set point for FVR responses was similar. In both groups the latency of the maximal MAP response to negative pressure (13 beats) was larger than positive pressure (7 beats, p<0.05). Overall there was a significant correlation between the set point of the blood pressure response and neck circumference (r= ‐0.64, p<0.05). These data suggest there may be subtle but physiologically relevant differences in carotid baroreflex control in young men and women. Given the impact of gender and age on susceptibility to hypertension, further study is required to evaluate these responses in older men and women. Grant Funding Source : None
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".