Sex‐specific sympathetic responses to chemoreflex stress in healthy young men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) responses to baroreceptor unloading are typically greater in men than women, it is unclear whether chemoreflex responses differ between the sexes. We tested the null hypothesis that MSNA responses to concurrent hypoxia and hypercapnia would not be different between sexes. Microneurographic recordings of fibular nerve MSNA, heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP; Finometer) were acquired from healthy young men and women (n=6 each, 25±3y). Females were tested in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. Following baseline recordings, an oxygen partial pressure of 70 torr and an end tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure of 50 torr were achieved through a rebreathing protocol. Immediately succeeding the rebreathing protocol, an end‐inspiratory apnea commenced following inhalation of these gas concentrations. Baseline values for HR, MAP, and MSNA levels did not differ between the sexes. The HR and MAP responses to chemoreflex stress were also similar between men and women ( P >0.05). However, during the apnea increases in MSNA burst frequency (+39±16 versus +23±9 bursts/min, P =0.03) and burst incidence (+54±21 versus +38±15 bursts/100 heart beats, P =0.04) were larger in women than men, respectively. These data suggest that sympathetic responses to an apneic hypoxic‐hypercapnic stimulus are greater in women than in men. Supported by NSERC and CIHR.
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) | 0.002 | 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".