Sex differences in sympathetic neurovascular and neurohemodynamic relationships during cold pressor test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) affects vascular resistance differently in women and men. However, whether this sex difference persists during pronounced increases in MSNA remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine sex differences in neurovascular transduction during cold pressor test (CPT)-mediated sympathoexcitation. Integrated peroneal MSNA (microneurography) was measured at rest and during a 3-min CPT in young healthy women ( n = 11) and men ( n = 10). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was measured beat-by-beat (Finometer), and superficial femoral artery blood flow was measured using duplex ultrasound. Femoral vascular resistance (FVR) was quantified as MAP/femoral blood flow (mmHg/mL/min). Baseline MSNA was similar between women and men (14 ± 9 vs. 15 ± 9 bursts/100 heartbeat, respectively; P = 0.83), whereas MAP was lower (86 ± 7 vs. 92 ± 4 mmHg; P = 0.047), and FVR was greater in women than men (0.54 ± 0.16 vs. 0.36 ± 0.15 mmHg/mL/min; P = 0.02). CPT-induced increases in MSNA were similar between the sexes (19 ± 11 vs. 26 ± 14 bursts/100 heartbeat; P = 0.26) whereas increases in MAP (7 ± 3 vs. 10 ± 3 mmHg; P = 0.03) and FVR (3.2 ± 18.6 vs. 26.8 ± 12.8%; P < 0.01) were smaller in women than in men. Within men, CPT- induced increases in MSNA predicted increases in MAP ( R2 = 0.51, P = 0.02) and FVR ( R2 = 0.49, P = 0.02). However, MSNA did not predict MAP ( R2 = 0.11, P = 0.35) or FVR ( R2 = 0.07, P = 0.46) in women. Our findings demonstrate that men experience robust CPT-induced MAP responses that are driven by both neurovascular (MSNA-FVR) and neurohemodynamic (MSNA-MAP) coupling. These relationships were not observed in women, indicating that even during pronounced increases in sympathetic outflow, MSNA is not predictive of vascular nor blood pressure outcomes in young healthy 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) | 0.002 | 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".