Review: ACE inhibition or angiotensin receptor blockade: which should we use in diabetic patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockade of the effects of angiotensin II (Ang II) by using an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor has been proven to be of value in Type 1 diabetic nephropathy and in non-diabetic renal disease. Evidence in favour of Ang II blockade in Type 2 diabetic patients with renal damage is still lacking for ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is), while recent data indicate that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could be the drugs of choice in this situation. On the other hand, renal damage from the onset of disease is accompanied by a very significant increment in global cardiovascular risk. This fact, as well as that of simultaneous renal and cardiovascular protection, have to be considered for drug selection. In this sense, ACE-Is have been shown to be the drugs of choice when secondary cardiovascular prevention is required, while the evidence in primary prevention in hypertensive patients has been shown with losartan in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. All these facts led to the conclusion that both ACE-Is and ARBs can be considered when both renal and cardiovascular protection are aimed for in Type 2 diabetic 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".