MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of antihypertensive drugs on vascular remodeling: do they predict outcome in response to antihypertensive therapy?

2001· review· en· W2054442980 on OpenAlexaff
Ernesto L. Schiffrin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicineMuscle hypertrophyHeart failureAngiotensin-converting enzymeEssential hypertensionLeft ventricular hypertrophyACE inhibitorClinical trialVascular smooth muscleAntihypertensive drugAngiotensin IISmooth muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remodeling of large and small arteries in hypertension contributes to elevation of blood pressure, and may participate in the complications of hypertension. Large arteries exhibit increased lumen size, thickened media with increased collagen deposition, and decreased compliance, which contributes to raised systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure. In small (resistance) arteries smooth muscle cells are restructured around a smaller lumen, without true hypertrophy, particularly in milder forms of hypertension, whereas in severe forms and in secondary hypertension hypertrophic remodeling has been reported. Endothelial dysfunction occurs in many patients, with prevalence similar to that of left ventricular hypertrophy. Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor subtype 1 antagonists and long-acting calcium channel blockers has corrected changes in large and small arteries in hypertensive patients. Treatment with beta-blockers did not modify either structure or function of small arteries. Improved outcomes were reported in clinical trials with drugs that exert vascular protective effects, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor subtype 1 antagonists, as well as with those that do not appear to improve vascular structure or function. Recent trials suggest that these different drugs may provide similar benefits essentially through blood pressure lowering, although some minor differences between drugs have been noted. For example, the alpha-blocker doxasozin has been associated with worse outcomes (heart failure) than have diuretics. That hard end-point clinical trials have not demonstrated any advantages of agents with vasculoprotective properties may relate in part to the relatively short duration of some of these multicenter trials (3-5 years). Another contributing factor may be the low number of events with each drug class in the longer trials. Thus, current evidence does not support the rational expectation that vasculoprotective antihypertensive agents will be associated with better outcomes in hypertensive patients, possibly because of limitations of these trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207