Standard versus Low-Dose Transdermal Nitroglycerin: Differential Effects on the Development of Tolerance and Abnormalities of Endothelial Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared standard (0.6 mg/h) versus low-dose (0.05 mg/h) transdermal nitroglycerin (TGTN) on acute hemodynamic parameters, the development of tolerance, and endothelial function. Study 1 randomized six healthy volunteers to receive 0.6 mg/h or 0.05 mg/h TGTN in a crossover design study (6-day washout period) with measurements of heart rate, blood pressure, radial artery waveforms, and aortic augmentation index taken at baseline and 1, 2, and 3 hours after initial TGTN application. Study 2 enrolled 24 healthy volunteers to receive 400 μg of sublingual nitroglycerin spray followed by 400 μg of inhaled salbutamol 90 minutes later. Measurements of heart rate, blood pressure, radial artery waveforms as well as aortic augmentation index were taken at baseline and at 5, 10, and 20 minutes after each treatment. They were randomized to either 0.6 mg/h or 0.05 mg/h of TGTN, and the same measurements were repeated after 6 days. In Study 1, there was no significant difference in the response to both doses (analysis of variance, P < 0.05). In Study 2, the decrease in aortic augmentation index in response to sublingual nitroglycerin and salbutamol was attenuated after sustained therapy with 0.6 mg/h of TGTN (versus 0.05 mg/h, P < 0.05). This investigation documents that 0.05 mg/h TGTN has identical acute hemodynamic effects compared with 0.6-mg/h dose without causing tolerance or endothelial dysfunction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".