Molecular Targets of Antihypertensive Peptides: Understanding the Mechanisms of Action Based on the Pathophysiology of Hypertension
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest in using functional foods or nutraceuticals for the prevention and treatment of hypertension or high blood pressure. Although numerous preventive and therapeutic pharmacological interventions are available on the market, unfortunately, many patients still suffer from poorly controlled hypertension. Furthermore, most pharmacological drugs, such as inhibitors of angiotensin-I converting enzyme (ACE), are often associated with significant adverse effects. Many bioactive food compounds have been characterized over the past decades that may contribute to the management of hypertension; for example, bioactive peptides derived from various food proteins with antihypertensive properties have gained a great deal of attention. Some of these peptides have exhibited potent in vivo antihypertensive activity in both animal models and human clinical trials. This review provides an overview about the complex pathophysiology of hypertension and demonstrates the potential roles of food derived bioactive peptides as viable interventions targeting specific pathways involved in this disease process. This review offers a comprehensive guide for understanding and utilizing the molecular mechanisms of antihypertensive actions of food protein derived peptides.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it