Oral contraceptives modulate the muscle metaboreflex in healthy young women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are known sex differences in blood pressure regulation. The differences are related to ovarian hormones that influence β-adrenergic receptors and the transduction of muscle sympathetic nerve activity. Oral contraceptives (OC) modulate the ovarian hormonal profile in women and therefore may alter the cardiovascular response. We questioned if OC would alter the absolute pressor response to static exercise and influence the day-to-day variability of the response. Healthy men (n = 11) and women (n = 19) completed a familiarization day and 2 experimental testing days. Women were divided into those taking (W-OC, n = 10) and not taking (W-NC, n = 9) OC. Each experimental testing day involved isometric handgripping exercise, at 30% of maximal force, followed by circulatory occlusion to isolate the metaboreflex. Experimental days in men were 7-14 days apart. The first experimental testing in W-OC occurred 2-7 days after the start of the active phase of their OC. Women not taking OC were tested during the early and late follicular phase of the menstrual cycle as determined by commercial ovulation monitor. The increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP) during exercise was significantly lower in W-NC (95 ± 4 mm Hg) compared with men (114 ± 4 mm Hg) and W-OC (111 ± 3 mm Hg) (P < 0.05), with the differences preserved during circulatory occlusion. The rise in MAP was significantly correlated between the 2 testing days in men (r = 0.72, P < 0.01) and W-OC (r = 0.77, P < 0.05), but not in W-NC (r = 0.17, P = 0.67), indicating greater day-to-day variation in W-NC. In conclusion, OC modulate the exercise pressor response in women and minimize day-to-day variability in the exercise metaboreflex.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".