Impact of Endothelin on Vascular Function in Hypertensive Postmenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endothelin‐1 contributes to vascular dysfunction in hypertensive adults through the endothelin‐A receptor (ETAR). However, our laboratory has recently shown an important role for the ETB receptor (ETBR) in regulating vascular function in women. We tested the hypothesis that hypertension is associated with a decline in ETBR function in postmenopausal women (PMW), and that this decline can be attenuated by anti‐hypertensive medication. We recruited normotensive PMW (NT; n=9, age: 60±4 yrs, BMI: 25±5 kg/m 2 ), hypertensive PMW naïve to therapy (HT; n=8, age: 59±5 yrs, BMI: 26±2 kg/m 2 ), and medicated hypertensive PMW (MedHT; n=8, age: 63±6 yrs, BMI: 25±5 kg/m 2 ). Blood pressure (BP) readings were taken on more than 1 visit to confirm BP category. We measured cutaneous vasodilatory responses to local heating via laser Doppler flowmetry during microdialysis perfusions of lactated Ringer's (Control) and ETBR blockade (BQ‐788, 300nM). Cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC) was calculated during the plateau phase of local heating (42°C) and normalized to maximal vasodilation achieved by perfusion of sodium nitroprusside (28mM) and heating to 43°C. A two‐way ANOVA was performed to compare the impact of hypertensive status on vasodilatory responses to ETBR antagonists. Groups were well matched except for resting blood pressure. Systolic BP was lowest in NT compared to the HT and MedHT groups (NT:122±9, HT; 148±11, MedHT: 131±10 mmHg; P<0.02), but diastolic BP was similar between groups (NT: 68±5, HT: 76±7, MedHT: 73±8 mmHg, P=0.15). Plasma ET‐1 was lower in NT compared to HT (NT: 1.29±0.24, HT: 1.83±0.2, MedHT: 1.57±0.44 pg/mL; P=0.03). Microvascular vasodilation (control site) was similar between groups (NT: 90±7, HT: 86±13, MedHT: 89±7 %CVC max ; P=0.56). Furthermore, ETBR blockade did not alter vasodilatory responses to local heating (NT: 90±7, HT: 91±9, MedHT: 84±11 %CVC max , P=0.99). These preliminary data suggest that the ETBR does not contribute to vascular dysfunction in hypertensive PMW. Additional data are needed to understand the mechanisms contributing to hypertension in women.
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) | 0.001 | 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".