MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800715855 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00039.2018

Effect of sex, menstrual cycle phase, and monophasic oral contraceptive pill use on local and central arterial stiffness in young adults

2018· article· en· W2800715855 on OpenAlexafffund
Stacey E. Priest, Ninette Shenouda, Maureen J. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsArterial stiffnessMenstrual cycleMedicinePulse wave velocityPillLuteal phaseOral contraceptive pillStiffnessInternal medicineLevonorgestrelCardiologyEndocrinologyFollicular phasePopulationHormoneFamily planningBlood pressureMaterials sciencePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arterial stiffness is associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk. Previous sex-based investigations of local and central stiffness report inconsistent findings and have not controlled for menstrual cycle phase in women. There is also evidence that sex hormones influence the vasculature, but their impact on arterial stiffness across a natural menstrual (NAT) or oral contraceptive pill (OCP) cycle has been understudied. This study sought to 1) examine potential sex differences in local and central stiffness, 2) compare stiffness profiles between NAT and OCP cycles, and 3) investigate the relationship between duration of OCP use and arterial stiffness. Sex hormone concentrations, β-stiffness index (local stiffness), and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity [cfPWV (central stiffness)] were assessed in 53 healthy adults (22 ± 3 yr old, 20 men, 15 NAT women, and 18 OCP women). All participants were tested three times: men on the same day and time 1 wk apart, NAT women in menstrual, midfollicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle, and OCP women in placebo, early active and late active pill phases. β-Stiffness was higher in men than NAT and OCP women ( P < 0.001), whereas cfPWV was similar between groups ( P = 0.09). β-Stiffness and cfPWV did not differ across or between NAT and OCP cycles ( P > 0.05 for both) and were not associated with duration of OCP use (β-stiffness: r = 0.003, P = 0.99; cfPWV: r = -0.26, P = 0.30). The apparent sex differences in local, but not central, stiffness highlight the importance of assessing both indexes in comparisons between men and women. Furthermore, fluctuating sex hormone levels do not appear to influence β-stiffness or cfPWV. Therefore, these stiffness indexes may need to be assessed during only one cycle phase in women in future investigations. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We observed higher local, but not central, arterial stiffness in men than women. We also demonstrated that there are no differences in arterial stiffness between naturally cycling women and women who use monophasic oral contraceptive pills, and that the duration of oral contraceptive pill use does not influence arterial stiffness.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations56
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207