Preliminary, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled cross-over study with resveratrol in hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is a debilitating disease affecting the population worldwide. Novel therapeutic strategies that complement the current management of hypertension will reduce the disease burden. Our randomized, cross-over, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial studied the efficacy of plant polyphenol resveratrol (trans-3, 5, 4'-trihydroxystilbene) in managing blood pressure in pre-hypertensive and stage-1-hypertensive patients. Participants with pre-hypertension (diastolic and systolic blood pressure (BP), 80-89 mmHg and 120-139 mmHg, respectively) and 30 participants with stage-1-hypertension (diastolic and systolic BP, 90-99 mmHg and 140-159 mmHg, respectively) were assigned to receive 500 mg resveratrol, twice daily for 4 weeks, orally) or placebo twice daily for 4 weeks) in a 2 × 2 cross-over design (4 weeks treatment-4 weeks washout-4 weeks treatment). The BP of each participant was recorded every week during the study. Data analysis using the multivariable model revealed that resveratrol's effects on systolic and diastolic BP were not statistically significantly superior to those of placebo. Nitric oxide (NO) was considerably higher in the resveratrol-treated group than in the placebo-treated group. In this preliminary study, Resveratrol supplementation for a short duration enhances nitric oxide production but does not significantly lower blood pressure in pre-hypertension or stage 1 hypertension patients. This finding remains exploratory and needs confirmation through larger, long-term clinical trials. Trial registration: IRCT201407078129N7, first trial registration date: 15/08/2014.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".