Rationale for ACE Inhibition in the Elderly: Treatment of Arterial Hypertension with Enalapril
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted with 32 elderly patients (aged 75-97 years) with uncomplicated essential hypertension, to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. It was given over an 8-week period in doses from 20 to 40 mg/day and was compared with an identical placebo. Enalapril caused a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by the 2nd week, an effect that persisted through to the 8th week (190 +/- 16/102 +/- 7 to 151 +/- 19/85 +/- 11 mm Hg); 67% of patients had their pressures normalized (less than 160/95 mm Hg). BP was also significantly decreased by the 8th week under placebo (183 +/- 16/101 +/- 9 to 165 +/-21/91 +/- 13 mm Hg), but only 35% of patients attained a normal pressure. Heart rate did not change with treatment. Enalapril caused an increase in plasma renin activity (1.22 +/- 0.08 to 3.66 +/- 2.50 ng/ml/h), whereas aldosterone levels remained unchanged. There was a mild, significant elevation of creatinine level with enalapril but other laboratory parameters, including serum potassium, were unaltered. Two deaths occurred in the enalapril group, but were not considered to be treatment-related. The drug was otherwise well tolerated. Serum enalapril concentration was assessed in 10 patients taking 20 mg/day over an 8-day period. At equilibrium, the level was 22.3 +/- 5.0 ng/l and it correlated both with converting enzyme inhibition and with renal function. Enalapril is shown to be an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive medication in elderly patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".