MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Sex on Cardiovascular Responses to Acute Sympathoexcitatory Stressors

2019· article· en· W3174761610 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yasmine Coovadia, Tessa E. Adler, Charlotte W. Usselman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCold pressor testSupine positionInternal medicineSympathetic nervous systemHeart rateSympathetic activitySex characteristicsStressorCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past twenty years, an increasing number of studies have compared baseline cardiovascular regulation between men and women. These studies have provided strong support for an effect of sex on cardiovascular outcomes, and implicate the sympathetic nervous system as a mediator of many of these differences. However, many of these studies have been conducted under baseline conditions, despite the fact that humans are seldom in a true “baseline” state (i.e., quiet, supine rest). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of sex on cardiovascular responses to sympatho‐excitatory stimuli in young healthy individuals. We examined cardiovascular responses to the cold pressor test (CPT) and a voluntary end‐expiratory apnea (APN) in 5 women and 4 men. We hypothesized that women would demonstrate a reduced change in total peripheral resistance (TPR) and therefore blood pressure (BP) responses to these stimuli compared with men. Men and women were of similar age (men: 24 ± 2 y, women: 24 ± 1; p=0.8) and BMI (men: 26 ± 6 kg/m 2 , women: 22 ± 1; p=0.2). Baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) was higher in men than women (87 ± 7 vs 77 ± 4 mmHg, respectively; p=0.03), while baseline TPR (men: 25.7 ± 2.7 vs women: 23.2 ± 6.6 mmHg/L/min; p=0.5) and cardiac output (3.4 ± 0.4 vs 3.5 ± 0.9 L/min; p=0.9) were similar between the sexes. CPT was associated with a significant increase in MAP from baseline which was not different between the sexes (men: 90 ± 3 vs women: 92 ± 13mmHg; main effect of condition: p=0.03, effect of sex: p=0.7). Likewise, TPR increased in response to CPT, but again this response did not differ between the sexes (men: 27.0 ± 7.1, vs women: 25.8 ± 5.4 mmHg/L/min; main effect of condition: p=0.04, effect of sex: p=0.3). APN‐EX was associated with a similar increase in DBP (men: 83 ± 6 vs women: 69 ± 25 mmHg; main effect of condition: p=0.03, effect of sex: p=0.3) as well as TPR (men: 33.0 ± 4.8 vs women: 29.0 ± 13.9 mmHg/L/min; main effect of condition: p=0.01, effect of sex: p=0.6). In conclusion, cardiovascular responses to the CPT, a generalized sympathetic stressor, as well as to APN, which activates the chemoreflex, were similar between the young healthy men and women. These data refute our hypothesis, and suggest that cardiovascular responsiveness during these sympatho‐excitatory stimuli does not differ between the sexes. Support or Funding Information This project was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discovery Grant (CWU). TEA and YC were supported by the McGill Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education Graduate Excellence Fellowship. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207