Divergent relationship between arterial baroreflex sensitivity and mental stress‐induced blood pressure reactivity in women and men of Oman Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arterial baroreflex is important for buffering blood pressure (BP) responses to stress. Whether the sensitivity of the arterial baroreflex (BRS) is associated with hemodynamic responses to mental stress is sex dependent is unclear. We tested the relationships between BRS, BP and heart rate (HR) responses to a modified Word Conflict Test (WCT) in a cohort of semi‐rural, healthy Omani Arab women (n=69; 25±7 years; BMI: 23±5 kg/m 2 [mean±SD]; BP: 104±10/65±8mmHg) and men (n=55; 24±7 years; BMI: 23±5 kg/m 2 ; BP: 120±18/76±15mmHg). Resting BRS was similar in women and men (16±10 vs. 16±8 ms/mmHg). In women, the WCT increased (All P<0.01) systolic (Δ10±17mmHg), diastolic (Δ6±13mmHg), mean arterial pressure (Δ8±15mmHg), and HR (Δ8±15bpm). In men, the WCT increased (All P<0.01) systolic (Δ10±18mmHg), diastolic (Δ7±16mmHg), mean arterial pressure (Δ9±17mmHg), and HR (Δ13±15bpm). Resting BRS was +ve associated with changes in systolic (r=0.40, P=0.001), diastolic (r=0.34, P=0.003), mean arterial pressure (r=0.33, P=0.005) and HR (r=0.27, P=0.03) in women but ‐ve correlated with systolic BP (r=‐0.30, P=0.03) and HR (r=‐0.24, P=0.08) in men. These findings demonstrate a sex‐based difference in the role of the arterial baroreflex in buffering BP where mental stress in women showed higher vagal modulations of HR that may play a larger role in determining BP. As exaggerated stress reactivity is predictive of future hypertension, high BRS in women and low BRS in men may be important factors to identify individuals at risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".