Analysis of bidirectional pattern synchrony of concentration-secretion pairs: implementation in the human testicular and adrenal axes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothalamo-pituitary-testicular and hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axes are prototypical coupled neuroendocrine systems. In the present study, we contrasted in vivo linkages within and between these two axes using methods without linearity assumptions. We examined 11 young (21-31 yr) and 8 older (62-74 yr) men who underwent frequent (every 2.5 min) blood sampling overnight for paired measurement of LH and testosterone and 35 adults (17 women and 18 men; 26-77 yr old) who underwent adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and cortisol measurements every 10 min for 24 h. To mirror physiological interactions, hormone secretion was first deconvolved from serial concentrations with a waveform-independent biexponential elimination model. Feedforward synchrony, feedback synchrony, and the difference in feedforward-feedback synchrony were quantified by the cross-approximate entropy (X-ApEn) statistic. These were applied in a forward (LH concentration template, examining pattern recurrence in testosterone secretion), reverse (testosterone concentration template, examining pattern recurrence in LH secretion), and differential (forward minus reverse) manner, respectively. Analogous concentration-secretion X-ApEn estimates were calculated from ACTH-cortisol pairs. X-ApEn, a scale- and model-independent measure of pattern reproducibility, disclosed 1) greater testosterone-LH feedback coordination than LH-testosterone feedforward synchrony in healthy men and significant and symmetric erosion of both feedforward and feedback linkages with aging; 2) more synchronous ACTH concentration-dependent feedforward than feedback drive of cortisol secretion, independent of gender and age; and 3) enhanced detection of bidirectional physiological regulation by in vivo pairwise concentration-secretion compared with concentration-concentration analyses. The linking of relevant biological input to output signals and vice versa should be useful in the dissection of the reciprocal control of neuroendocrine systems or even in the analysis of other nonendocrine networks.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".