Abstract P1101: Hormonal Contraceptive Use, Arterial Stiffness and Renin Angiotensin System Activity in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral contraceptive use is associated with increased CV risk. Whether non-oral hormonal contraceptive use poses a similar risk is unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the association between oral and non-oral hormonal and arterial stiffness and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) activity in premenopausal women. Methods: Healthy premenopausal women using non-oral hormonal contraception (NOHC), oral hormonal contraception (OC) (minimum duration of 3 months) and controls were studied in a fasting, high-salt state. Aortic augmentation index (AIx) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were measured at baseline and in response to Angiotensin II (AngII) challenge, a validated marker of arterial RAS activity. Results from the 3 groups were compared using ANOVA and presented as mean and standard error. Results: Fifty-six women (6 OC, 8 NOHC, 42 controls) were studied. Women were similar in age (OC 29±7yvs NOHC 28±4yvs controls 32±2y, p=0.52)and BMI (OC 26.7±1vsNOHC 22.3±2vs controls25.3±4, p=0.12). No differences were observed amongst the groups with regards to baseline arterial stiffness measures (AIx: OC 4.08±1%; NOHC -2.75±2%; controls 9.01±3%; p =0.10; PWV: OC 6.94±3 m/s; NOHC 6.4±2 m/s; controls 8.04±5m/s; p=0.49). In response to AngII challenge, NOHC users had a greater change in AIx compared to OC after adjustment for age and blood pressure (NOHC 17.06±3%; controls 9.76±1%; p=0.048). No significant changes in PWV were observed among NOHC or OC and controls. Conclusions: Arterial RAS is lower in non-oral hormonal contraceptive users, suggesting this may be a safer contraception option in women at high risk of CVD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".