Sex differences in mechanisms of cardiac excitation–contraction coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence and expression of cardiovascular diseases differs between the sexes. This is not surprising, as cardiac physiology differs between men and women. Clinical and basic science investigations have shown important sex differences in cardiac structure and function. The pervasiveness of sex differences suggests that such differences must be fundamental, likely operating at a cellular level. Indeed, studies have shown that isolated ventricular myocytes from female animals have smaller and slower contractions and underlying calcium transients compared to males. Recent evidence suggests that this arises from sex differences in components of the cardiac excitation-contraction coupling pathway, the sequence of events linking myocyte depolarization to calcium release from the sarcoplasmic reticulum and subsequent contraction. The concept that sex hormones may regulate intracellular calcium at the level of the cardiomyocyte is important, as levels of these hormones decline in both men and women as the incidence of cardiovascular disease rises. This review focuses on the impact of sex on cardiac contraction, in particular at the cellular level, and highlights specific components of the excitation-contraction coupling pathway that differ between the sexes. Understanding sex hormone regulation of calcium homeostasis in the heart may reveal new avenues for therapeutic strategies to treat cardiac dysfunction and cardiovascular diseases.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".