Vascular improvement with olmesartan medoxomil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To inhibit the incidence of end organ damage it is apparent that lowering blood pressure (BP) in of itself may not be sufficient. Attenuation of the effects of angiotensin II (AII) has proven essential in slowing progression of heart and kidney target organ damage. As vascular remodeling and endothelial dysfunction precede the development of hypertension and organ damage, the blockade of AII at the AT1 receptor with an angiotensin receptor blocker may prove efficacious in reversing vascular pathology and end organ damage. In this study 100 non-diabetic, class I essential hypertensive patients were randomized to either atenolol 100 mg or olmesartan 40 mg plus a fixed schedule of secondary agents as needed to achieve BP control for one year. After a four week washout and at week 52 of the study vascular structure was assessed by direct measurement of wall dimensions on a pressurized myograph in small resistance vessels obtained from gluteal subcutaneous fat biopsies on 49 patients. Vascular structure of 11 normotensive subjects is noted for comparison. Patient demographics were: 39 % women; mean age 55, range 38–67; mean BMI 29 kg/m2; mean cholesterol 211 mg/dL; potassium 4.3 mEq/dL; mean creatinine 0.8 mg/dL; both arms had similar characteristics. At a comparable level of blood pressure control (mean for study group 122/77±11/6 mmHg), AT1 blockade induced a decrease in the wall to lumen ratio percentage from 14.9±0.8% to 11.1± 0.5%, a value nearly identical to that of the normotensive subjects, 11.0± 0.6%. This was significantly different (p<0.001) than the lack of effect in reducing remodeling obtained with beta blockade wherein there was essentially no change (16.0± 0.8 % to 15.5± 0.6%). Blockade of the AT1 receptor with olmesartan medoxomil produces vascular remodeling of a resistance vessel virtually to normal whereas atenolol has little or no effect.
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) | 0.005 | 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".