Sex Differences in Orthostatic Tolerance Are Mainly Explained by Blood Volume and Oxygen Carrying Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The reduced orthostatic tolerance (OT) that is characteristic of the female sex may be explained by multiple phenotypic differences between sexes. This study aimed to elucidate the mechanistic role of blood volume (BV) and oxygen carrying capacity on sex differences in OT. DESIGN: Experimental intervention. SETTING: University of Calgary, Main Campus, Calgary, AB, Canada. SUBJECTS: Healthy women and men ( n = 90) throughout the adult lifespan (20–89 yr) matched by age and physical activity. INTERVENTIONS: Incremental lower body negative pressure (LBNP) in all individuals. Blood withdrawal and oxygen carrying capacity reduction in men to match with women’s levels. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Transthoracic echocardiography and central blood pressures were assessed throughout incremental LBNP for 1 hour or until presyncope. Blood uniformization resulted in a precise sex match of BV and oxygen carrying capacity ( p ≥ 0.598). A third of women (14/45) and two thirds of men (31/45) prior to blood uniformization completed the orthostatic test without presyncopal symptoms ( p -for-sex < 0.001). After blood uniformization, seven out of 45 men completed the test ( p -for-sex = 0.081). Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and stroke volume (SV) were progressively reduced with LBNP in both sexes, with women showing markedly lower volumes than men ( p < 0.001). Blood uniformization did not eliminate sex differences in LVEDV and SV. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in OT are not present when BV and oxygen carrying capacity are experimentally matched between sexes throughout the adult lifespan.
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".