COMPARISON OF INTRAVENOUS LABETALOL AND ORAL NIFEDIPINE IN ACUTE CONTROL OF SEVERE HYPERTENSION PREGNANCY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Globally, hypertensive diseases account for 14% of maternal fatalities. The risk of maternal death increases when blood pressure is more than 160/110 mmHg. Method This prospective, randomized clinical trial was carried out with participation from the JJM Medical College, Bapuji Hospital, Chigateri General Hospital, and Women and Child Health Hospital, all of which are connected with Davanagere. Result This study contained 100 cases in total; the subjects were split into two groups according to the medications they received. Patients in groups A (labetalol) and B (nifedipine) had average ages of 24.47 and 23.07 years, respectively. 46% of the women in the labetalol group were primigravida, and 54% were multigravida; 38% of the women in the nifedipine group were primigravida, and 62% were multigravida. The average number of doses required to reach the desired blood pressure was 2.86 with labetalol and 1.66 with nifedipine. Conclusion According to our ndings, oral nifedipine is a better option—especially in low-resource settings—than intravenous labetalol for treating acute severe hypertension in pregnancy. It is also more cost-effective.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".