Original research Treatment with double dose of omeprazole increases -endorphin plasma level in patients with coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The proton pump inhibitor empirical trial, besides the analysis of symptoms, is the main method in the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-related chest pain. β-Endorphin acts as an endogenous analgesia system. The aim of the study was verify whether β-endorphin plasma level is affected by omeprazole administration and influences the severity of anginal symptoms and outcome of the "omeprazole test" in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and chest pain of suspected non-cardiac origin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Omeprazole was administered to 48 patients with CAD in a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study design. At the beginning of the study, and again after the 14-day omeprazole and placebo treatment, the β-endorphin plasma concentration was determined. RESULTS: The level of plasma β-endorphin after the administration of omeprazole was significantly greater than at the start of the study and following the placebo. Responders to omeprazole had an average lower β-endorphin plasma concentration than subjects who failed to respond to this therapy. Subjects with symptoms in class III (according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification) after omeprazole administration had a greater β-endorphin plasma level than subjects in class II for anginal symptom severity. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen-day therapy with a double omeprazole dose significantly increases the β-endorphin plasma concentration in patients with CAD. Circulating β-endorphin does not seem to be involved in the mechanism for the "omeprazole test" outcome, although an individually different effect on pain threshold cannot be excluded.
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) | 0.004 | 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".