Effects of nebivolol and atenolol on insulin sensitivity and haemodynamics in hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of nebivolol and atenolol in 25 ambulatory hypertensive patients with impaired glucose tolerance. DESIGN: Clinic and ambulatory blood pressure, insulin sensitivity (euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp), glucose tolerance (intravenous glucose tolerance test), systemic and regional haemodynamics were measured after 4 weeks of placebo and after each 16-week treatment period in a double-blind, crossover fashion. RESULTS: Nebivolol and atenolol similarly reduced (P< 0.001) clinic and ambulatory blood pressure by approximately 15/10 mmHg, systolic and diastolic. Clinic and ambulatory heart rate was reduced to a greater extent (P < 0.01) by atenolol than nebivolol. Atenolol was associated with an approximately 20% reduction in insulin sensitivity (insulin-induced glucose disposal rate/mean insulin concentration ratio, P < 0.01) and an approximately 10% reduction in glucose disappearance rate (K-value, P < 0.05), whereas these variables were not significantly modified with nebivolol. Cardiac output was reduced similarly (P < 0.05) by both drugs at rest but forearm blood flow, forearm vascular resistance or total peripheral resistance were unaffected. A significant inverse correlation coefficient between cardiac output and insulin sensitivity was found at baseline, suggesting that a compensatory increase in systemic blood flow occurs in hypertensive patients with progressively more marked insulin resistance. This relationship was unaffected by nebivolol but was lost with atenolol. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that insulin sensitivity was not modified significantly by nebivolol, whereas it was reduced by atenolol, although blood pressure was decreased to the same extent by both drugs. Neither drug induced systemic or forearm vasodilatation but the inverse relationship between cardiac output and insulin sensitivity was preserved with nebivolol but not with atenolol.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".