Dehydroepiandrosterone, obesity and cardiovascular disease risk: a review of human studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The age-related decline in serum dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its sulfated ester (DHEA-S) has suggested that a relative deficiency of these steroids may be causally related to the development of chronic diseases generally associated with aging, including insulin resistance, obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, reductions of the immune defense, depression and a general deterioration in the sensation of well-being. The numerous studies which have focused on the link between DHEA and cardiovascular disease have generally been inconsistent, generating much debate and controversy on this issue. The present article is an analysis of studies on the relationship between endogenous DHEA or DHEA-S, obesity and cardiovascular disease risk, as well as DHEA treatment studies. Elevated plasma levels of free DHEA are associated with reduced obesity in both men and women, and with smaller abdominal body fat accumulations in men. However, contradictory results have been reported regarding the relationships between the sulfate ester DHEA-S and adiposity. Age differences in the populations studied may have been a confounding factor in these associations. On the other hand, DHEA-S level is not a predictor of cardiovascular disease endpoints in women, and appears to be a relatively weak one in men. DHEA intervention studies suggest that the effects of DHEA on serum lipids are, at best, modest or non-significant. The uncertainty as to whether endogenous and exogenous DHEA should be considered cardioprotective is related to discrepancies in the literature on this topic. Several studies may have been plagued by methodological problems such as low power, unreliable analytical methods, confounding factors or other differences in the populations studied. As a consequence, the original reports demonstrating dramatic effects of either endogenous or exogenous DHEA on cardiovascular disease risk have never been replicated. We propose that the effects of DHEA on cardiovascular disease risk (either favorable or unfavorable) should be considered to be much more modest than previously believed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".