A comparative review of the efficacy of antihypertensive agents on 24 h ambulatory blood pressure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring has contributed significantly to the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of hypertension. However, most of the published reviews have not focused on the 24 h efficacy of conventional and new antihypertensive agents as measured by ABP monitoring. OBJECTIVES: To discuss the importance of 24 h blood pressure control, and to review the antihypertensive efficacy of conventional antihypertensive agents and of angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1R) blockers as assessed by ABP monitoring. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 24 h antihypertensive efficacy of the different classes of agents was reviewed based on clinical, randomized, double-blind trials published in peer review journals. These trials were mainly performed in the authors' research unit but were performed in other centres as well. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Most antihypertensive agents provided 24 h ABP control. However, in the authors' experience, hydrochlorothiazide, some angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and low dosages of the calcium antagonist diltiazem did not permit satisfactory blood pressure reduction as assessed by ABP monitoring in truly hypertensive patients. AT1R blockers and especially those of the new generation characterized by tight and long lasting AT1-receptor binding produced adequate 24 h ABP control and continued effectiveness during the high risk early morning hours.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".