Endogenous estrogen and androgen levels are not independent predictors of lipid levels in postmenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relationships between endogenous sex hormone levels and cardiovascular disease risk in women are contentious. Our aim was to systematically investigate the relationships between sex steroids and lipid levels in postmenopausal women, taking into account other potential risk factors. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of 624 naturally and surgically postmenopausal women not using any systemic hormones or lipid-lowering therapy, with a mean (SD) age of 53.9 (5.8) years, who were recruited in the United States, Canada, Australia, UK, and Sweden between July 2004 and February 2005. The relationships between total testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, estrone, estradiol, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), the homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and each lipid variable were explored using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: None of the sex steroids measured made an independent contribution to the multivariable models for total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, or triglycerides (TG). The best model for total cholesterol included race and age, and that for LDL cholesterol included race and blood pressure, with each model only explaining 4.8% and 3.3% of the variation in each lipid, respectively. About 7.7% of the variation in non-HDL cholesterol was explained by HOMA-IR, race, and SHBG. HOMA-IR, SHBG, age, and surgical menopause explained 22.8% of the variation in HDL cholesterol, whereas HOMA-IR, SHBG, race, and surgical menopause explained 25.4% of the variation in TG. CONCLUSIONS: Endogenous estrogen and androgen levels are not independent predictors of lipid levels in postmenopausal women. HOMA-IR and SHBG each make independent contributions to HDL cholesterol and TG. These factors make little contribution to total and LDL cholesterol.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".