Blood pressure but not parental history for hypertension predicts pain perception in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has suggested an attenuated sensitivity to painful stimulation in hypertensive men. We recently reported that, compared with persons with negative parental history, men, but not women, with a positive history for hypertension showed attenuated pain perception. This study specifically addressed factors that predict pain perception in women, including blood pressure, parental history and mood states. Fifty-four normotensive women with positive (PH+; n = 20) or negative parental history (PH-; n = 34) for hypertension and high or low casual systolic blood pressure (BP) performed the cold pressor (CP) test. Participants rated their pain every 15 s during a 90-s hand CP (0-4 degrees C) and a 90-s post-CP rest period. Detailed mood ratings were obtained immediately before the CP test. Data were evaluated using multivariate repeated measure analyses of variance and regression analyses. PH+ and PH- women did not differ in age, height, weight, education, resting BP, or heart rate. PH+ and PH- women did not differ in pain ratings during or after the CP, or pain ratings using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and they did not differ in their cardiovascular responses to the CP, confirming our earlier study in a separate sample. Women with high casual systolic BP reported significantly less pain, especially after the CP (P < 0.01). MPQ total scores confirmed this finding with high BP women reporting less pain than low BP women (P < 0.05). Regression analyses confirmed these effects. Controlling for potential confounding variables did not alter these relationships. These findings suggest that in women, phenotype systolic BP may be a better predictor of hypoalgesia than parental history of hypertension.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".