Dose-related effects of red wine and alcohol on hemodynamics, sympathetic nerve activity, and arterial diameter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cardiovascular benefits of light to moderate red wine consumption often have been attributed to its polyphenol constituents. However, the acute dose-related hemodynamic, vasodilator, and sympathetic neural effects of ethanol and red wine have not been characterized and compared in the same individual. We sought to test the hypotheses that responses to one and two alcoholic drinks differ and that red wine with high polyphenol content elicits a greater effect than ethanol alone. Thirteen volunteers (24-47 yr; 7 men, 6 women) drank wine, ethanol, and water in a randomized, single-blind trial on three occasions 2 wk apart. One drink of wine and ethanol increased blood alcohol to 38 +/- 2 and 39 +/- 2 mg/dl, respectively, and two drinks to 72 +/- 4 and 83 +/- 3 mg/dl, respectively. Wine quadrupled plasma resveratrol (P < 0.001) and increased catechin (P < 0.03). No intervention affected blood pressure. One drink had no heart rate effect, but two drinks of wine increased heart rate by 5.7 +/- 1.6 beats/min; P < 0.001). Cardiac output fell 0.8 +/- 0.3 l/min after one drink of ethanol and wine (both P < 0.02) but increased after two drinks of ethanol (+0.8 +/- 0.3 l/min) and wine (+1.2 +/- 0.3 l/min) (P < 0.01). One alcoholic drink did not alter muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA), while two drinks increased MSNA by 9-10 bursts/min (P < 0.001). Brachial artery diameter increased after both one and two alcoholic drinks (P < 0.001). No beverage augmented, and the second wine dose attenuated (P = 0.02), flow-mediated vasodilation. One drink of ethanol dilates the brachial artery without activating sympathetic outflow, whereas two drinks increase MSNA, heart rate, and cardiac output. These acute effects, which exhibit a narrow dose response, are not modified by red wine polyphenols.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".