Comparison of Hepatic Parameters Following Administration of Antihypertensive, Hypolipidemic and Hypoglycemic Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of additive effects of drugs has remained a continuous concern while prescribing more than one drug to a patient, and it becomes more of a problem when the patient suffers from various diseases simultaneously. In this reasearch the drug taking pattern of elderly patients was kept in mind and the antihyperlipidemic, oral hopoglycemic and antihypertensive commonly prescribed in combinations or as individual agents were given to the rabbits for period of two months and their effects on liver function tests were noted. As compared to control rabbits, Acarbose and Glibenclamide decreased Direct bilirubin (DBR), where as Lisinopril and Amlodipine increased it (P<0.05). Atorvastatin and Amlodipine increased Total bilirubin (TBR) (P<0.05). Acarbose and Metformin increased, where as Atorvastatin decreased Glutamic-Pyruvic Transaminase (GPT) (P<0.05). Metformin and Lisinopril decreased (P<0.05) where as Losartan increased ALP(alkaline phosphatase) (P<0.005). Losartan and Atorvastatin increased Gamma Glutamyl Transferase γ-GT (P<0.005).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".