Trial reportAmerican journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism2011
Complex regulation of GH autofeedback under dual-peptide drive: studies under a pharmacological GH and sex steroid clamp.
Trial report in American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender determines ACTH recovery from hypercortisolemia in healthy older humans.Metabolism: clinical and experimental · 2013Trial
- Regulated recovery of pulsatile growth hormone secretion from negative feedback: a preclinical investigation.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2011Trial
- Hormone therapy for sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Network identification of hormonal regulation.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To test the postulate that sex difference, sex steroids, and peptidyl secretagogues control GH autofeedback, 11 healthy postmenopausal women and 14 older men were each given 1) a single iv pulse of GH to enforce negative feedback and 2) continuous iv infusion of saline vs. combined GHRH/GHRP-2 to drive feedback escape during pharmacological estradiol (E(2); women) or testosterone (T; men) supplementation vs. placebo in a double-blind, prospectively randomized crossover design. By three-way ANCOVA, sex difference, sex hormone treatment, peptide stimulation, and placebo/saline responses (covariate) controlled total (integrated) GH recovery during feedback (each P < 0.001). Both sex steroid milieu (P = 0.019) and dual-peptide stimulation (P < 0.001) determined nadir (maximally feedback-suppressed) GH concentrations. E(2)/T exposure elevated nadir GH concentrations during saline infusion (P = 0.003), whereas dual-peptide infusion did so independently of T/E(2) and sex difference (P = 0.001). All three of sex difference (P = 0.001), sex steroid treatment (P = 0.005), and double-peptide stimulation (P < 0.001) augmented recovery of peak (maximally feedback-escaped) GH concentrations. Peak GH responses to dual-peptidyl agonists were greater in women than in men (P = 0.016). E(2)/T augmented peak GH recovery during saline infusion (P < 0.001). Approximate entropy analysis corroborated independent effects of sex steroid treatment (P = 0.012) and peptide infusion (P < 0.001) on GH regularity. In summary, sex difference, sex steroid supplementation, and combined peptide drive influence nadir, peak, and entropic measurements of GH release under controlled negative feedback. To the degree that the pharmacological sex steroid, GH, and dual-peptide clamps provide prephysiological regulatory insights, these outcomes suggest major determinants of pulsatile GH secretion in the feedback domain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.