Differences in cardiovascular risk factors associated with sex and gender identity, but not gender expression, in young, healthy cisgender adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Sex differences exist in cardiovascular disease risk factors including elevated blood pressure and arterial stiffness, and decreased endothelial function in males compared to females. Feminine gender expression may be associated with elevated risk of acute coronary syndrome. However, no study has investigated the associations between sex, gender identity, and gender expression and cardiovascular disease risk factors in young adults. Methods One hundred and thirty participants (22 ± 3 years) underwent assessments of hemodynamics, arterial stiffness [pulse wave velocity (PWV)], and brachial artery endothelial function (flow-mediated dilation; %FMD). Participants completed a questionnaire capturing sex category (50 male/80 female), gender identity category (49 men/79 women/2 non-binary), and aspects of gender expression assessed by the Bem Sex Role Inventory-30 (39 androgynous/33 feminine/29 masculine/29 undifferentiated). Sex/gender identity category groups were compared using unpaired t -tests and gender expression groups compared using one-way ANOVAs. Results Resting systolic and mean arterial pressure ( p < 0.01) were elevated in males vs. females. Central PWV was elevated in males [median (interquartile range): 6.4 (1.8) vs. 5.8 (2.2) m/s, p = 0.02]; however, leg and arm PWV were not different between sexes. %FMD was elevated in males vs. females, after accounting for a larger baseline artery diameter in males (8.8 ± 3.3% vs. 7.2 ± 3.1%, p = 0.02); since the majority of participants were cisgender, the same results were found examining gender identity (men vs. women). There were no differences across gender expression groups ( p > 0.05). Conclusions Sex/gender identity category, but not gender expression, influence cardiovascular risk factors (blood pressure, arterial stiffness, endothelial function) in cisgender adults; further research is needed in gender-diverse populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".