PROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF ANGIOTENSIN II BLOCKADE WITH OLMESARTAN MEDOXOMIL ON RESISTANCE VESSEL REMODELING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The VIOS (Vascular Improvement with Olmesartan medoxomil Study) study is a randomized, parallel study to determine the relative effects of suppressing the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) with the angiotensin receptor antagonist olmesartan medoxomil versus suppressing sympathetic drive with the beta-adrenoceptor antagonist atenolol on remodeling of the subcutaneous small resistance vessel. Remodeling of small resistance vessels may be the earliest pathologic finding associated with hypertension. It may predate the onset of clinically apparent hypertension. Methods: In this study, 100 patients with stage I hypertension are characterized at baseline before being treated for 1 year to obtain a goal BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg, as defined by Joint National Committee (JNC)-7. Resistance vessel remodeling is determined using the gluteal fat biopsy technique in the hypertensive patients and a group of normotensive healthy volunteers. Additionally, efforts will be made to define whether noninvasive hemodynamic parameters, retinal vessel measurement changes, or biologic markers may predict and track the underlying vascular morphologic and physiologic changes induced by either regimen during the 12-month treatment period. Results: The primary endpoint will be the degree of vascular remodeling as obtained from percutaneous biopsy of gluteal subcutaneous resistance vessels in each of two treatment arms compared with the healthy volunteers. The design of the study and the pertinent baseline characteristics of these patients with uncomplicated essential hypertension are presented. Conclusion: The suppression of the RAS by the blockade of angiotensin II type 1 (AT (1)) receptors may demonstrate remodeling effects on the ubiquitous small resistance vessels similar to that seen in the myocardium and renal glomeruli, thus affording more complete end-organ protection.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".