Gender Differences in the Renal Response to Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that gender differences exist in renin-angiotensin system (RAS) function. It was hypothesized that women may differ also in their response to RAS blockade. The renal and peripheral hemodynamic responses to incremental dosages of an angiotensin receptor blocker and the degree of angiotensin II (AngII) insensitivity achieved during 8 wk were examined in men and women. Participants were 30 young healthy men (n = 15; mean age 27 +/- 2) and women (n = 15; mean age 28 +/- 2) who were on a controlled sodium and protein diet for 1 wk before each study. The humoral, renal, and systemic response to incremental dosages of irbesartan (75 mg for 4 wk, then 150 mg for 4 wk) was assessed, as was the pressor response to AngII (3 ng/kg per min), at 2-wk intervals. AngII type 1 receptor expression in skin biopsies was assessed at baseline and after 8 wk by a real-time PCR protocol. Men and women both exhibited significant declines in BP. Women achieved significantly reduced AngII sensitivity compared with men at lower dosages, showing no pressor response at 4 wk of 75 mg/d irbesartan, whereas men continued to exhibit a pressor response at 4 wk of 150 mg/d. Receptor expression at baseline did not differ between men and women but by 8 wk was significantly decreased in women and unchanged in men. Our findings indicate that men may require larger dosages of angiotensin receptor blocker than do women and that the BP response cannot be used as a surrogate marker for adequate RAS blockade of the renal microvasculature.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".