4.5 Article

Allostatic Load: Importance, Markers, and Score Determination in Minority and Disparity Populations

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11524-019-00345-5

关键词

Allostasis; Stress; African Americans; Hispanic Americans; Epidemiologic measurements

资金

  1. Divisions of Intramural Research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  2. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
  3. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [ZIADK047023] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Allostatic load is a physiological measure of the cumulative burden of stress on the body assessed by markers of physiological dysregulation. It is a multisystem construct that quantifies biological risk which leads to poor health and maladaptive trajectories. In this overview, which is based on a presentation made at the Flip the Script: Understanding African American Women's Resilience in the Face of Allostatic Load meeting at Ohio State University in August 2018, we build upon previous reviews by discussing four key aspects of allostatic load, specifically its: (1) importance, (2) operationalization, (3) use in minority health and health disparities research, and (4) value in such research. Operationalized in various ways, allostatic load is composed of 10 original markers and additional markers deriving from research among minority and disparity populations. The markers represent four biological systems: (1) cardiovascular, (2) metabolic, (3) inflammatory, and (4) neuroendocrine. System-specific racial/ethnic and sex-based differences have been observed. An overall score can be determined using sample-generated or empirically derived clinically relevant cut points. In summary, allostatic load provides an overall and a body system-specific mechanistic link between exposures to stressors and health outcomes that may help explain health disparities among minority populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据