Novel Effects of Hormonal Contraceptive Use on the Plasma Proteome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hormonal contraceptive (HC) use may increase cardiometabolic risk; however, the effect of HC on emerging cardiometabolic and other disease risk factors is not clear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between HC use and plasma proteins involved in established and emerging disease risk pathways. METHOD: Concentrations of 54 high-abundance plasma proteins were measured simultaneously by LC-MRM/MS in 783 women from the Toronto Nutrigenomics and Health Study. C-reactive protein (CRP) was measured separately. ANCOVA was used to test differences in protein concentrations between users and non-users, and among HC users depending on total hormone dose. Linear regression was used to test the association between duration (years) of HC use and plasma protein concentrations. Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to identify plasma proteomic profiles in users and non-users. RESULTS: After Bonferroni correction, 19 proteins involved in inflammation, innate immunity, coagulation and blood pressure regulation were significantly different between users and non-users (P<0.0009). These differences were replicated across three distinct ethnocultural groups. Traditional markers of glucose and lipid metabolism were also significantly higher among HC users. Neither hormone dose nor duration of use affected protein concentrations. PCA identified 4 distinct proteomic profiles in users and 3 in non-users. CONCLUSION: HC use was associated with different concentrations of plasma proteins along various disease-related pathways, and these differences were present across different ethnicities. Aside from the known effect of HC on traditional biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk, HC use also affects numerous proteins that may be biomarkers of dysregulation in inflammation, coagulation and blood pressure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".