Comparison of two different doses of Nifedipine on blood pressure and blood metabolic indicators in patients with essential hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
History and Objectives: Considering the high frequency of patients with essential hypertension and the controversies about the effect of Nifedipine alone on the blood pressure and blood metabolic indicators and in order to compare the two doses of 20 and 30 milligrams of Nifedipine on blood pressure changes and blood metabolic indicators, this study was performed on the patients referring to Martyr Rajai Heart hospital in 1373. Materials and Methods: A cross over clinical trial study was performed on 36 individuals (72 samples). The patients were divided into two groups by random, each including eighteen cases. Nifedipine (Novopharm company, Canada) was administered at a dose of 20 milligrams per day in one group and at a dose of 30 milligrams per day in the other one. Then up to seven weeks, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and blood sodium, potassium, glucose, triglyceride, cholesterol, creatinine and uric acid were measured. Thereafter the patients in the two groups and the Nifedipine dose were exchanged and again the mentioned indicators were measured. Results: From the 36 individuals under study, 20 ones (55%) were male and 16 (45%) were female with 40 to 65 years old. Systolic blood pressure was decreased from 165 to 138 and diastolic blood pressure was decreased from 106 to 93 at a Nifedipine dose of 30 milligrams per day while systolic and diastolic blood pressure changes were from 155 to 137 and from 101 to 93 respectively at a Nifedipine dose of 20 milligrams per day (P Conclusion: Nifedipine alone decreases blood pressure but has no significant clinical effect on metabolic indicators. Nifedipine alone at a dose of 20 milligrams is recommended and further research on patients with hypertension and its relationship with other factors is recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".