Effect of aging on carotid baroreflex control of blood pressure and leg vascular conductance in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work suggests that β-adrenergic vasodilation offsets α-adrenergic vasoconstriction in young women, but this effect is lost after menopause. Given these age-related vascular changes, we tested the hypothesis that older women would exhibit a greater change in vascular conductance following baroreflex perturbation compared with young women. In 10 young (21 ± 1 yr) and 10 older (62 ± 2 yr) women, mean arterial pressure (MAP; Finometer), heart rate (HR), cardiac output (CO; Modelflow), total vascular conductance (TVC), and leg vascular conductance (LVC, duplex-Doppler ultrasound) were continuously measured in response to 5-s pulses of neck suction (NS; -60 Torr) and neck pressure (NP; +40 Torr) to simulate carotid hypertension and hypotension, respectively. Following NS, decreases in MAP were similar between groups; however, MAP peak response latency was slower in older women (P < 0.05). Moreover, at the time of peak MAP, increases in LVC (young, -11.5 ± 3.9%LVC vs. older, +19.1 ± 7.0%LVC; P < 0.05) and TVC were greater in older women, whereas young women exhibited larger decreases in HR and CO (young, -10 ± 3% CO vs. older, +0.8 ± 2% CO; P < 0.05). Following NP, increases in MAP were blunted (young, +14 ± 1 mmHg vs. older, +8 ± 1 mmHg; P < 0.05) in older women, whereas MAP response latencies were similar. Interestingly, decreases in LVC and TVC were similar between groups, but HR and CO (young, +7.0 ± 2% CO vs. older, -4.0 ± 2% CO; P < 0.05) responses were attenuated in older women. These findings suggest that older women have greater reliance on vascular conductance to modulate MAP via carotid baroreflex, whereas young women rely more on cardiac responsiveness. Furthermore, older women demonstrate a blunted ability to increase MAP to hypotensive stimuli.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".