Comparative impact of enalapril, candesartan or metoprolol alone or in combination on ventricular remodelling in patients with congestive heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: RESOLVD study patients were randomized to candesartan (C), enalapril (E), or C+E. Patients were later randomized to metoprolol CR (M) or placebo. Examine impact of C or E (C/E), C+E, C+M/E+M, C+E+M on ventricular remodelling in heart failure (HF) over 43 weeks. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-six of 768 patients receiving C, E, or C+E were randomized to either M or placebo. Patients were New York Heart Association class II-IV, ejection fraction (EF) <0.40 and 6-min walk distance <500 m. Ejection fraction (EF), cardiac volumes, blood pressures, heart rates, and neurohormones were measured. End diastolic volumes changed +29.4+/-6.4 ml for C/E, +16.6+/-10.4 ml for C+E, +19.7+/-6.5 ml for C+M/E+M, and -6.4+/-7.5 ml for C+E+M (P< or =0.01). End systolic volumes changed +22.9+/-5.8 ml for C/E, +11.9+/-9.1 ml for C+E, +6.0+/-5.7 ml for C+E/E+M, and -16.5+/-7.0 ml for C+E+M (P< or =0.001). Ejection fraction changed +0.01+/-0.01 for C/E, +0.01+/-0.01 for C+E, +0.03+/-0.01 for C+M/E+M, and +0.05+/-0.01 for C+E+M (P< or =0.0001). No significant differences for blood pressure or neurohormones; heart rate for C+M/E+M and C+E+M decreased (P< or =0.01) vs C/E or C+E. CONCLUSION: C+E+M had a modest but beneficial effect on cardiac function compared to the other groups. Combination of C+E+M has potential for providing HF patients with further benefit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".