Bibliographic record
Abstract
This double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new controlled-onset, extended-release formulation of verapamil hydrochloride called physiologic pattern release (PPR) verapamil. The study was conducted at 24 sites (13 United States, 5 Canada, 6 overseas; see Appendix). Following a 1- to 3-week single-blind placebo lead-in period, 278 patients with chronic stable angina pectoris (247 males, 31 females, mean age 60.8 years, range 32 to 78) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 once-daily, fixed-dose treatment groups: verapamil 180, 360, or 540 mg, or placebo. PPR verapamil at all doses significantly increased (p < 0.05) time to moderate angina and symptom-limited exercise duration, and verapamil 360 mg significantly increased (p < 0.05) time to > or = 1 mm ST-segment depression, after 4 weeks of treatment when assessed 24 hour after the previous dose. Larger doses of verapamil were associated with proportionately greater improvements in exercise tolerance. Frequency of anginal attacks was also reduced by verapamil. The most frequently observed adverse events were dizziness, headache, constipation, and nausea. The incidence of constipation was high (20.9%) within the 540 mg treatment group. This verapamil formulation can be clinically titrated within a 180 to 540 mg dosing range, permitting effective once-daily administration for the treatment of chronic stable angina.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".