Effect of amlodipine compared to atenolol on small arteries of previously untreated essential hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous retrospective study, long-term treatment of essential hypertensive patients with a slow-release calcium channel blocker resulted in normal resistance artery structure and endothelial function, which did not occur with a beta-blocker. In the present prospective study, 19 previously untreated essential hypertensive patients (aged 47 +/- 2 years, 75% male) were treated for 1 year in a double-blind randomized study with the long-acting calcium channel blocker amlodipine or the beta-blocker atenolol. Resistance arteries (lumen diameter, 150 to 350 microm) dissected from gluteal subcutaneous biopsies were studied on a pressurized myograph. Blood pressure (BP) control (129 +/- 2/85 +/- 2 mm Hg) was identical in both groups for the last 6 months of the study. After 1 year of treatment with amlodipine, the media-to-lumen ratio (M/L) of resistance arteries decreased from 7.89% +/- 0.40% to 6.81% +/- 0.41% (P < .05). Acetylcholine-induced endothelium-dependent relaxation tended to improve from 84.3% +/- 5.5% to 90.5% +/- 4.8% (P = .06), whereas sodium nitroprusside-induced relaxation was unchanged in the patients treated with amlodipine. In the beta-blocker-treated group there was no significant change in M/L or acetylcholine-induced relaxation. In conclusion, treatment with the calcium channel blocker amlodipine corrected altered resistance artery structure and tended to improve endothelial function in essential hypertensive patients, whereas similar good control of BP with the beta-blocker atenolol did not. Whether the vascular protective effect of amlodipine will result in improved outcomes in hypertension remains to be demonstrated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".