MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587758059 · doi:10.1113/jp273368

The influence of adrenergic stimulation on sex differences in left ventricular twist mechanics

2017· article· en· W2587758059 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra M. Williams, Rob Shave, William S. Cheyne, Neil D. Eves

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaInterior Health
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsInternal medicineTwistCardiologySpeckle tracking echocardiographyMedicineHeart failureMathematicsGeometryEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key points Sex differences in left ventricular (LV) mechanics occur during acute physiological challenges; however, it is unknown whether sex differences in LV mechanics are fundamentally regulated by differences in adrenergic control. Using two‐dimensional echocardiography and speckle tracking analysis, this study compared LV mechanics in males and females matched for LV length during post‐exercise ischaemia (PEI) and β1‐adrenergic receptor blockade. Our data demonstrate that while basal rotation was increased in males, LV twist was not significantly different between the sexes during PEI. In contrast, during β1‐adrenergic receptor blockade, LV apical rotation, twist and untwisting velocity were reduced in males compared to females. Significant relationships were observed between LV twist and LV internal diameter and sphericity index in females, but not males. These findings suggest that LV twist mechanics may be more sensitive to alterations in adrenergic stimulation in males, but more highly influenced by ventricular structure and geometry in females. Abstract Sex differences in left ventricular (LV) mechanics exist at rest and during acute physiological stress. Differences in cardiac autonomic and adrenergic control may contribute to sex differences in LV mechanics and LV haemodynamics. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate sex differences in LV mechanics with altered adrenergic stimulation achieved through post‐handgrip‐exercise ischaemia (PEI) and β1‐adrenergic receptor (AR) blockade. Twenty males (23 ± 5 years) and 20 females (22 ± 3 years) were specifically matched for LV length (males: 8.5 ± 0.5 cm, females: 8.2 ± 0.6 cm, P = 0.163), and two‐dimensional speckle‐tracking echocardiography was used to assess LV structure and function at baseline, during PEI and following administration of 5 mg bisoprolol (β1‐AR antagonist). During PEI, LV end‐diastolic volume and stroke volume were increased in both groups (P < 0.001), as was end‐systolic wall stress (P < 0.001). LV twist and apical rotation were not altered from baseline or different between the sexes; however, basal rotation increased in males (P = 0.035). During β1‐AR blockade, LV volumes were unchanged but blood pressure and heart rate were reduced in both groups (P < 0.001). LV apical rotation (P = 0.036) and twist (P = 0.029) were reduced in males with β1‐AR blockade but not females, resulting in lower apical rotation (males: 6.8 ± 2.1 deg, females: 8.8 ± 2.3 deg, P = 0.007) and twist (males: 8.6 ± 1.9 deg, females: 10.7 ± 2.8 deg, P = 0.008), and slower untwisting velocity (males: 68.2 ± 22.1 deg s−1, females: 82.0 ± 18.7 deg s−1, P = 0.046) compared to females. LV twist mechanics are reduced in males compared to females during reductions to adrenergic stimulation, providing preliminary evidence that LV twist mechanics may be more sensitive to adrenergic control in males than in females.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207