Lean Body Mass Associates With a Hypertensive Cardiovascular Phenotype in Men but Not in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lean body mass (LBM) is independently associated with the function and structure of the cardiovascular (CV) system in women and genetically predisposed men with low LBM. Yet, the relationship between LBM and the CV system remains uncertain in the general population comprising a wide spectrum of LBM. METHODS: A total of 325 healthy women (n = 162) and men (n = 163) throughout the adult lifespan (18-78 years) matched by age (age = 43 ± 18 vs. 44 ± 18 years) and physical activity were included. Body composition, including LBM, fat and bone mass, was assessed in total and per body region (legs, arms and trunk) by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Left ventricular (LV) mass and structure as well as peripheral and central haemodynamics were determined via echocardiography and continuous blood pressure measurements. RESULTS: Women presented with lower total LBM (p < 0.001) and higher body fat (p < 0.001) than men. Total LBM did not associate with systolic blood pressure (SBP) in women (p = 256) but did positively associate with SBP in men (r = 0.31, p < 0.001). Total LBM did not associate with LV concentric hypertrophy (LVRWTd) in women (p = 448) but did positively associate with LVRWTd in men (r = 0.24, p = 0.003). Similar sex-specific associations were observed for regional LBM, except for arm LBM, which associated with all study variables in women. Adjustment by body fat or body fat percentage did not modify the results. CONCLUSIONS: Total LBM independently associates with a hypertensive CV phenotype in men, whereas regional LBM, specifically in the arms, is linked with the same detrimental phenotype in 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".