Hormone replacement use, arterial distensibility, cardiac structure and circadian blood pressure profile in menopausal women
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational and interventional studies that evaluate the impact of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on cardiovascular changes have produced inconsistent and inconclusive results. The present study sought to elucidate the influence of HRT on aortic distensibility, left ventricular mass (LVM) and 24-h blood pressure (BP) profile in 38 menopausal women who were either HRT users or non-users. The two groups were similar for age, ambulatory BP, aortic distensibility, cardiac mass, lipid profile and body mass index but differed in clinic diastolic BP (DBP). HRT non-dippers had significantly lower clinic and daytime DBP and a smaller nocturnal BP reduction than dippers. Daytime DBP was significantly and inversely related to duration of HRT use. The present study demonstrates that hormonal therapy after menopause lowers DBP, but shows no significant influence on aortic distensibility, cardiac mass or 24-h BP profile. HRT users who were dippers demonstrated a significantly greater nocturnal BP reduction. Long-term controlled trails are needed to better define the effects of estrogen and progestin on the aorta, the heart and 24-h BP profile in normotensive and hypertensive menopausal women.
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.
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 it