MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuous Therapy with Nitroglycerin Impairs Endothelium-Dependent Vasodilation but Does Not Cause Tolerance in Conductance Arteries

2004· article· en· W2001134912 on OpenAlexaff
Tommaso Gori, Paula J. Harvey, John S. Floras, John D. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachial arteryMedicineVasodilationTransdermalArteryCardiologyEndotheliumAnesthesiaInternal medicinePharmacologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated in healthy humans whether continuous therapy with organic nitrates impairs conduit artery responses to nitroglycerin (GTN) as well as its effects on endothelium-dependent vasodilation. Sixteen young male volunteers were randomized to continuous treatment with either transdermal GTN (0.6 mg/h/24 hrs for 6 days) or no therapy. Endothelium-dependent (flow-mediated) dilatation (FMD) and endothelium-independent (GTN-mediated) dilatation (GMD) of the brachial artery were evaluated before randomization (session 1), after six days of transdermal GTN treatment (session 2), and three hours after withdrawal of transdermal GTN (session 3). In the GTN group, on session 1, 0.4 mg sublingual GTN increased resting brachial artery diameter from 0.40 +/- 0.03 to 0.45 +/- 0.03 cm (P < 0.01). At the time of session 2, this GTN-mediated vasodilation remained unchanged at baseline (0.47 +/- 0.04 cm), with no further significant dilatation in response to either stimulus. On session 3, three hours after patch removal, baseline brachial artery diameter and GMD returned to pretreatment values, but FMD remained blunted (session 1: 8.7 +/- 2.5; session 3: 4.1 +/- 1.7%, P < 0.05). There was no change in these variables in the control group. Our data demonstrate that continuous GTN therapy impairs endothelium-dependent vasodilation in conduit arteries yet does not induce nitrate tolerance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular PharmacologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207