Role of Gender and Physical Activity Level on Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Biomarkers of Oxidative Stress in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Cardiovascular diseases remain as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in industrialized countries. Ageing and gender strongly modulate the risk to develop cardiovascular diseases but very few studies have investigated the impact of gender on cardiovascular diseases in the elderly, which represents a growing population. The purpose of this study was to test the impact of gender and physical activity level on several biochemical and clinical markers of cardiovascular risk in elderly individuals. Methods. Elderly individuals (318 women ( 75.8±1.2 years-old) and 227 men ( 75.8±1.1 years-old)) were recruited. Physical activity was measured by a questionnaire. Metabolic syndrome was defined using the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel’s definition. Polysomnography and digital tonometry were used to detect obstructive sleep apnea and assess vascular reactivity, respectively. Blood was sampled to measure several oxidative stress markers and adhesion molecules. Results. The frequency of cardiovascular diseases was significantly higher in men (16.4%) than in women (6.1%) ( p<0.001 ). Body mass index ( 25.0±4.3 vs. 25.8±3.13 kg.m−2 ) and glycaemia ( 94.9±16.5 vs. 101.5±22.6 mg.dL−1 ) were lower, and High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) ( 74.6±17.8 vs. 65.0±17.2 mg.dL−1 ) was higher in women compared to men ( p<0.05 ). Oxidative stress was lower in women than in men (uric acid: 52.05±13.78 vs. 59.84±13.58 , advanced oxidation protein products: 223±94 vs. 246±101 μmol.L−1 , malondialdehyde: 22.44±6.81 vs. 23.88±9.74 nmol.L−1 ). Physical activity was not associated with lower cardiovascular risk factors in both genders. Multivariate analyses showed an independent effect of gender on acid uric ( β=0.182 ; p=0.020 ), advanced oxidation protein products ( β=0.257 ; p<0.001 ), and HDL concentration ( β=−0.182 ; p=0.026 ). Conclusion. These findings suggest that biochemical cardiovascular risk factors are lower in women than men which could explain the lower cardiovascular disease proportion observed in women in the elderly.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".