MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547503290 · doi:10.14740/cr497w

Serum Triglyceride Lowering Effect of Cilnidipine in Patients With Essential Hypertension

2016· article· en· W2547503290 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prakash Kumar, Arijit Das, Satish Chandra, Manju Gari, U. S. P. Keshri, Kusum Kumari

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureDyslipidemiaHypertriglyceridemiaInternal medicineEssential hypertensionCardiologyTriglycerideCalcium channel blockerDiastoleCholesterolObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many epidemiological studies have established the relationship between hypertension and dyslipidemia. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are one of the first-line drugs for newly diagnosed patients with essential hypertension. Cilnidipine as a newer CCB acting by blocking both L- and N-type calcium channels possesses additional beneficial effects apart from lowering blood pressure (BP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cilnidipine in patients with essential hypertension with borderline dyslipidemia and its effects on lipid profile. METHODS: Out of 45 enrolled patients, who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, only 37 completed the study. Cilnidipine was started at 10 mg/day, and then adjusted to 5 - 20 mg/day to achieve the target blood pressure. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of study, patients showed significant reduction in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean BP, heart rate and serum triglyceride level from baseline values (P < 0.00). CONCLUSION: In clinical setting where both hypertension and hypertriglyceridemia exist, cilnidipine can be a promising drug of choice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207