Cardiac-specific sympathetic activation in men and women with and without heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes for cardiovascular syndromes such as heart failure differ between men and women. OBJECTIVE: To seek phenotypic evidence for sex-differences in cardiac-specific sympathetic nervous system activation, as abnormal sympathetic nervous system activation is a key pathophysiological mechanism in heart failure (HF). METHODS: Patients who underwent evaluation of cardiac norepinephrine spillover (CNESP) using radiotracer methodology were identified retrospectively, and included in the analysis if they met criteria for either a normal left ventricular (NLV) function group, or systolic HF group, defined as an LV ejection fraction <40% and NYHA class II-III symptoms. Within each group a matched cohort analysis, identifying two control men for each woman, was performed. RESULTS: 166 subjects were identified, 48 within the NLV function group and 118 within the HF group. In the NLV function group, 12 women were matched for age to 24 men. Women had significantly higher NE concentrations in coronary sinus plasma. When normalised to total body NE spillover (CNESP:TBNESP), women had significantly higher values than men (CNESP:TBNESP, 6±3% in women vs 3±3% in men, p<0.05). In the HF group, 20 women were matched for age, date of study and presence of coronary disease to 39 men. There were no differences in comorbidities, drugs or haemodynamic measurements. Both CNESP and CNESP:TBNESP were significantly higher in women with HF than in men (CNESP 264±191 in women vs 182±110 in men, CNESP:TBNESP 9±6% in women vs 4±2% in men, p<0.05 for both). CONCLUSION: In patients with and without HF, women exhibit increased cardiac-specific sympathetic activation. Sexual dimorphism in cardiac autonomic physiology and its relationship to disease merits further investigation.
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) | 0.002 | 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".