Sex differences in obesity-related changes in left ventricular morphology: the Strong Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It is unclear whether there are sex differences in the relations of left ventricular mass to body composition and fat distribution in nonobese or obese hypertensive and nonhypertensive individuals and whether the obesity-related increase in left ventricular mass is similar in men and women. METHODS: We examined sex differences in the relations between left ventricular mass and both body composition and fat distribution, in the presence or absence of obesity in 1068 men and 1851 women (65%) of the Strong Heart Study cohort, without prevalent cardiovascular disease or severe chronic kidney disease. Fat-free mass (FFM) and adipose mass were estimated by bioelectric impedance analysis and fat distribution by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). RESULTS: Adipose mass was significantly higher in women than in men for any weight category (P < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, hypertension, systolic blood pressure (BP) and diabetes, both left ventricular mass/height (LVMi) and left ventricular mass (LVM)/FFM were greater in obese women than obese men (P < 0.0001). Relative wall thickness was also greater in women than in men (P < 0.0001). LVM was independently related to Doppler-stroke volume, FFM and systolic BP in both sexes, with WHR and adipose mass contributing to variance of LVM in women but not in men (both P < 0.03). CONCLUSION: Obesity influences left ventricular geometry substantially more in women than in men, possibly due to biological factors specifically associated with female adiposity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".