Therapeutically relevant blood pressure differences with two nifedipine (60 mg) osmotic delivery systems of differing design: three case reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the introduction of a new once-daily nifedipine 60 mg osmotic delivery tablet to Canada in 2009, several patients previously maintained at target blood pressure on regimens that included nifedipine 60 mg daily were observed to have > 10 mmHg rises in their systolic pressure during follow-up. The only difference noted in their medication and clinical status was a substitution with the new 60 mg nifedipine formulation by their pharmacists. Three patients agreed to report home blood pressure for N of 1 studies in which all clinical parameters remained the same, but their nifedipine was repeatedly switched between the original and alternate formulations each week. Of 14 recorded switches, systolic pressure was higher on the alternate formulation 13 times. In at least some patients, the alternate pump technology appears less effective. This highlights the need for better bioequivalence criteria for comparing differing delivery technologies that artificially retard absorption of the drug.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".