MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281974955 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.913609

The Association Between Route of Post-menopausal Estrogen Administration and Blood Pressure and Arterial Stiffness in Community-Dwelling Women

2022· article· en· W4281974955 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy Z. Kalenga, Jacqueline Hay, Kevin F. Boreskie, Todd A. Duhamel, Jennifer M. MacRae, Amy Metcalfe, Kara Nerenberg, Magali Robert, Sofia B. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Kidney Disease NetworkUniversity of ManitobaAlberta Children's HospitalSt. Boniface HospitalLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrogenMedicineBlood pressureArterial stiffnessTransdermalInternal medicinePulse wave velocityConcomitantEndocrinologyCardiologyPulse pressureMenopauseProgestinPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Although the route of estrogen administration may play a role in mediating risk, previous studies have not controlled for concomitant progestin use. Objective To investigate the association between the route of estrogen therapy (oral or non-oral) HT use, without concomitant progestin, and blood pressure and arterial stiffness in postmenopausal women. Methods Systolic blood pressure [SBP], diastolic blood pressure [DBP]), arterial stiffness (aortic pulse wave velocity [aPWV] and augmentation index at 75 beats per minute [AIx]) were measured using a validated automated brachial cuff-based oscillometric approach (Mobil-O-Graph) in a community-dwelling sample of 328 women. Results Fifty-five participants (16.8%) were ever users (current and past use) of estrogen-only HT (oral [ n = 16], transdermal [ n = 20], vaginal [ n = 19]), and 223 were never HT users (control). Ever use of oral estrogen was associated with increased SBP and DBP (Oral: SBP: 137 ± 4 mmHg, DBP: 79 ± 2 mmHg) compared to use of non-oral estrogen (transdermal: SBP: 118 ± 2 mmHg, DBP: 73 ± 1 mmHg; p < 0.01 & p = 0.012, respectively; vaginal: SBP: 123 ± 2 mmHg DBP: 73 ± 2 mmHg; p = 0.02 & p = 0.01, respectively.) and controls (SBP: 124 ± 1 mmHg, DBP: 74 ± 1 mmHg, p = 0.03, p = 0.02, respectively) after adjustment for covariates. aPWV was higher in oral estrogen ever users (9.9 ± 1 m/s) compared to non-oral estrogen (transdermal: 8.6 ± 0.3 m/s, p < 0.01; vaginal: 8.8 ± 0.7 m/s, p = 0.03) and controls (8.9 ± 0.5 m/s, p = 0.03) but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for covariates. AIx was higher in oral estrogen (29 ± 2 %) compared to non-oral estrogen (transdermal: 16 ± 2 %; vaginal: 22 ± 1.7 %) but this association was no longer significant after adjustment for covariates ( p = 0.92 vs. non-oral; p = 0.74 vs. control). Conclusion Ever use of oral estrogen was associated with increased SBP and DBP compared to non-oral estrogen use and no use. Given the cardiovascular risk associated with both menopause and increased blood pressure, further studies are required exploring the potential benefits of non-oral estrogen in postmenopausal 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207