Bibliographic record
Abstract
AT1-receptor blockers offer potential advantages in the management of heart failure, since they selectively block AT1-receptor activation, independent of the source of angiotensin II, while preserving the potentially beneficial effects of AT2-receptor activation. In placebo-controlled trials, these agents have been shown to have beneficial effects on haemodynamics and clinical status. Comparative studies, including the RESOLVD Pilot Study with candesartan, have shown that AT1-receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors produce comparable changes in haemodynamics, neurohormones, cardiac function, and heart-failure symptoms. The RESOLVD Pilot Study also showed that the combination of candesartan and enalapril produced a significantly greater improvement in left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) than either agent alone, consistent with the finding in the CHARM-Added study that the combination of candesartan and an ACE inhibitor significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, compared with ACE inhibition alone. Moreover, in the RESOLVD Pilot Study, triple combination therapy with candesartan, enalapril and metoprolol controlled release resulted in significantly improved LVEF and reductions in cardiac volumes, suggesting a favourable effect on cardiac function and remodelling, compared with dual neurohormonal blockade. By contrast, no such improvements in cardiac function were seen with valsartan in patients who were also receiving an ACE inhibitor and a β-blocker in the Val-HeFT echocardiographic substudy. In conclusion, mechanistic studies suggest that AT1-receptor blockers have a valuable role in the management of heart failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".