Impact of Pituitary–Gonadal Axis Hormones on Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association of sex hormone (estradiol, testosterone, and progesterone) with cardiopulmonary disease has already attracted great attention, especially in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, the impact of sex hormones and their pituitary stimulators (follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone) on PAH in men remains unclear. We conducted a prospective cohort study recruiting 95 patients with idiopathic PAH from 2008 to 2014 and following up for a median of 65 months for death. Compared with control, abnormal plasma levels of sex hormones were more common in patients with PAH. Higher estradiol and estradiol/testosterone levels were associated with risk of PAH diagnosis (odds ratio per ln estradiol, 3.55; P <0.001; odds ratio per ln estradiol/testosterone, 4.30; P <0.001), whereas higher testosterone and progesterone were associated with a reduced risk (odds ratio per ln testosterone, 0.48; P =0.003; odds ratio per ln progesterone, 0.09; P <0.001). Fifty patients died during follow-up. Men with higher estradiol had increased mortality (hazard ratio per ln estradiol, 2.02; P =0.007), even after adjustment for baseline characteristics and PAH treatment. According to receiver operating characteristic analysis, patients with PAH with higher estradiol level (≥145.55 pmol/L) had worse 5-year survival rate compared with those with lower estradiol (38.6% versus 68.2%; log-rank test P =0.001). Therefore, our data show higher estradiol, estradiol/testosterone ratio, lower testosterone, and progesterone were associated with increased risk of PAH. Meanwhile, higher estradiol was independently associated with higher mortality in men with PAH. Further studies are needed to explain the origin of these hormonal derangements and their potential pathophysiological implications in PAH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".