Effects of Cilnidipine on Heart Rate and Uric Acid Metabolism in Patients With Essential Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relation between hypertension and hyperuricemia has been established by epidemiological studies. Calcium channel blockers are one of the first-line drugs for newly diagnosed patients with essential hypertension. Cilnidipine is a new calcium channel blocker acting by blocking both L- and N-type calcium channels. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of amlodipine and cilnidipine in patients with essential hypertension and their effects on heart rate and serum uric acid levels. METHODS: Out of 100 enrolled patients, 92 completed the study. They were randomly assigned to amlodipine (N = 47) and cilnidipine (N = 45) groups. Cilnidipine was started at 10 mg/day and then adjusted to 5 - 20 mg/day, and amlodipine was started at 5 mg/day and then adjusted to 2.5 - 10 mg/day. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of study, patients in cilnidipine groups showed significant reduction in heart rate and serum uric acid levels from baseline (P = 0.00). CONCLUSION: In clinical setting where both hypertension and hyperuricemia 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".