Comparative Effects of Ramipril on Ambulatory and Office Blood Pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the HOPE-trial, the ACE inhibitor ramipril significantly reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The benefit could only partly be attributed to the modest mean reduction of office blood pressure (OBP) during the study period (3/2 mm Hg). However, because according to the HOPE protocol ramipril was given once daily at bedtime and blood pressure was measured during the day, the 24-hour reduction of blood pressure may be underestimated based on OBP. Thirty-eight patients with peripheral arterial disease enrolled in the HOPE study underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) measurement before randomization and after 1 year. OBP was measured in the sitting position immediately before fitting the ABP measuring equipment to the patients. Ramipril did not significantly reduce OBP (8/2 mm Hg, P=NS) or day ABP (6/2 mm Hg, P=NS) after 1 year. Twenty-four-hour ABP was significantly reduced (10/4 mm Hg, P=0.03), mainly because of a more pronounced blood pressure lowering effect during nighttime (17/8 mm Hg, P<0.001). The night/day ratio was also significantly lowered in the ramipril group. ABP shows greater falls, especially at night, than OBP during treatment with ramipril given once daily at bedtime. Although, OBP is the correct comparator when comparing with previous large intervention trials and epidemiological studies, the effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality seen with ramipril in the HOPE study may, to a larger extent than previously ascribed, relate to effects on blood pressure patterns over the 24-hour period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".