Gender differences in blood pressure in estrogen-deficient FORKO mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although estrogen has been implicated to have a protective role in cardiovascular disease, effects on the development of hypertension remain unclear. To address this, we investigated whether blood pressure is increased in female and male FORKO mice (follicle- stimulating hormone receptor knockout mice), which are estrogen-deficient, but have functionally active estrogen receptors. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was measured in adult mice by the tail-cuff method. Serum estradiol was lower in FORKO mice (< 3 pg/ml) compared with wild type mice (15 ±3 pg/ml). Serum testosterone was increased 2-fold in female FORKO (40 ng/dL) compared with male FORKO mice. SBP was significantly lower in FORKO female mice compared with wild type controls (101 ±1.8 vs 108 ± 1.9 mmHg, p<0.05). In contrast to female FORKO mice, SBP in male FORKO mice was higher than wild type counterparts (128 ± 2.6 vs 117 ± 2.7 mmHg, p<0.01). To further clarify the role of endogenous estrogen in blood pressure regulation, SBP was measured in ovariectomized and sham-operated female mice. Similar to the FORKO female mice, SBP was lower in ovariectomized mice compared with sham-operated mice (104 ± 4.4 vs 113 ± 5.2 mmHg). These data demonstrate that blood pressure is lower in estrogen-deficient female mice compared with controls, whereas in FORKO males, blood pressure is increased. Our findings suggest that factors other than estrogen may play a role in gender-related blood pressure differences.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".