Beating the clock: reducing cardiovascular risk by rapid blood pressure reduction with olmesartan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Hypertension is a major cardiovascular risk factor, and treatment guidelines acknowledge the value not only of reducing elevated blood pressure (BP) to target levels (< 140/90 mmHg and < 130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes or those at high cardiovascular risk) but also of doing this rapidly. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: The importance of rapid BP control has been demonstrated by trials like the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation trial. Combination therapy provides greater efficacy than monotherapy and reduces BP more rapidly. Combining angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with agents from other classes, like calcium channel blockers or diuretics, is an established way to provide effective, rapid and well-tolerated BP reduction. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: Although ARBs are widely used as mono- and combination therapy, it is not widely appreciated that there are differences between these drugs in efficacy and speed of action. The ARB olmesartan medoxomil provides rapid reductions in BP as monotherapy and combination therapy, with large BP reductions observed within the first few weeks of treatment. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: In addition to controlling BP, speed of onset of action is an important factor in the management of hypertensive patients and treatments that lower BP rapidly should help to reduce cardiovascular risk.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".