The impact of androgens on cardiovascular control mechanisms in polycystic ovary syndrome: Recent advances and translational approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrinopathy in premenopausal females. The condition is associated with an increased prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension. Observational studies report that some blood pressure control mechanisms are altered in PCOS compared to controls (sympathetic nervous system activity, endothelial and vasodilator function, renin angiotensin aldosterone system activation), and that these impairments correlate with androgen hormone levels, which are chronically elevated in the condition. As such, hyperandrogenism is the proposed locus of origin for the link between PCOS and cardiovascular dysfunction, yet the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. Preclinical work has provided some insight into how androgens modulate blood pressure control in PCOS. However there are marked discrepancies between the effects of androgens in cellular and tissue studies versus in vivo animal and human PCOS studies. This may be related to the heterogeneity of the preclinical models and samples used in this research and whether preclinical work is modelling hyperandrogenism in physiologically relevant terms for PCOS. This review collates preclinical and clinical evidence to summarise what is known and what remains unknown about cardiovascular control mechanisms in PCOS. We examine aspects of blood pressure regulation that are altered in other hypertensive cohorts, presenting current evidence for a mechanistic role of androgens on these systems, while acknowledging the diverse experimental models and participant cohorts from which the results are derived.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".