Sympathetic baroreflex gain in normotensive pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle sympathetic nerve activity is increased during normotensive pregnancy while mean arterial pressure is maintained or reduced, suggesting baroreflex resetting. We hypothesized spontaneous sympathetic baroreflex gain would be reduced in normotensive pregnant women relative to nonpregnant matched controls. Integrated muscle sympathetic burst incidence and total sympathetic activity (microneurography), blood pressure (Finometer), and R-R interval (ECG) were assessed at rest in 11 pregnant women (33 ± 1 wk gestation, 31 ± 1 yr, prepregnancy BMI: 23.5 ± 0.9 kg/m(2)) and 11 nonpregnant controls (29 ± 1 yr; BMI: 25.2 ± 1.7 kg/m(2)). Pregnant women had elevated baseline sympathetic burst incidence (43 ± 2 vs. 33 ± 2 bursts/100 heart beats, P = 0.01) and total sympathetic activity (1,811 ± 148 vs. 1,140 ± 55 au, P < 0.01) relative to controls. Both mean (88 ± 3 vs. 91 ± 2 mmHg, P = 0.4) and diastolic (DBP) (72 ± 3 vs. 73 ± 2 mmHg, P = 0.7) pressures were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women, respectively, indicating an upward resetting of the baroreflex set point with pregnancy. Baroreflex gain, calculated as the linear relationship between sympathetic burst incidence and DBP, was reduced in pregnant women relative to controls (-3.7 ± 0.5 vs. -5.4 ± 0.5 bursts·100 heart beats(-1)·mmHg(-1), P = 0.03), as was baroreflex gain calculated with total sympathetic activity (-294 ± 24 vs. -210 ± 24 au·100 heart beats(-1)·mmHg(-1); P = 0.03). Cardiovagal baroreflex gain (sequence method) was not different between nonpregnant controls and pregnant women (49 ± 8 vs. 36 ± 8 ms/mmHg; P = 0.2). However, sympathetic (burst incidence) and cardiovagal gains were negatively correlated in pregnant women (R = -0.7; P = 0.02). Together, these data indicate that the influence of the sympathetic nervous system over arterial blood pressure is reduced in normotensive pregnancy, in terms of both long-term and beat-to-beat regulation of arterial pressure, likely through a baroreceptor-dependent mechanism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".