Clinical efficacy and safety of two concentrations of intravenous nicardipine hydrochloride for nicardipine-related phlebitis in patients with preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of two concentrations of intravenous administration of nicardipine hydrochloride on nicardipine-related phlebitis in patients with preeclampsia. A total of 100 preeclampsia patients were administered with nicardipine hydrochloride and divided into the low-concentration (LC) and high-concentration (HC) groups. The incidence and severity of phlebitis, time from treatment to onset of phlebitis, skin temperature, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, induration, and systemic adverse reactions were compared between two groups. The incidence rate of phlebitis in the LC group was 20% (10/50), significantly lower than 42% (21/50) in the HC group (P < 0.05). Ridit Analysis showed that the severity of phlebitis in the LC group was remarkably lower than that in the HC group (P < 0.05). In the LC group, the time from intravenous administration to onset of phlebitis was longer, the average skin temperature was higher, the VAS score was lower, and the indurated area was smaller than those in the HC group (all P < 0.05). Intravenous infusion of nicardipine hydrochloride with constant and low concentration reduces the incidence rate of phlebitis, prolongs the time from treatment to onset of phlebitis, alleviates the severity of phlebitis and pain, maintains skin temperature, and minimizes induration in preeclampsia patients without systemic adverse reactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".