MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179747124 · doi:10.1113/ep085147

Effects of one's sex and sex hormones on sympathetic responses to chemoreflex activation

2015· review· en· W2179747124 on OpenAlexafffund
Charlotte W. Usselman, Craig D. Steinback, J. Kevin Shoemaker

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHormoneInternal medicineEndocrinologySympathetic activityPsychologyPhysiologyBiologyMedicineHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NEW FINDINGS: What is the topic of this review? This review summarizes sex-dependent differences in the sympathetic responses to chemoreflex activation, with a focus on the role of circulating sex hormones on the sympathetic outcomes. What advances does it highlight? The importance of circulating sex hormones for the regulation of sympathetic nerve activity in humans has only recently begun to be elucidated, and few studies have examined this effect during chemoreflex regulation. We review recent studies indicating that changes in circulating sex hormones are associated with alterations to chemoreflex-driven increases in sympathetic activity and highlight those areas which require further study. Sex-dependent differences in baseline sympathetic nerve activity are established, but little information exists on the influence of sex on sympathetic activation during chemoreflex stimulation. In this article, we review the evidence for the effect of sex on chemoreflex-driven increases in sympathetic nerve activity. We also review recent studies which indicate that changes in circulating sex hormones, as initiated by the menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptive use, elicit notable changes in the muscle sympathetic activation during chemoreflex stimulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207