Measures of blood pressure and cognition in dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are few reports on the relationship of blood pressure with cognitive function in maintenance dialysis patients. The Cognition and Dialysis Study is an ongoing investigation of cognitive function and its risk factors in six Boston area hemodialysis units. In this analysis, we evaluated the relationship between different domains of cognitive function with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, and intradialytic changes in systolic blood pressure, using univariate and multivariable linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and primary cause of end-stage renal disease. Among 314 participants, mean age was 63 years; 47% were female, 22% were African American, and 48% had diabetes. The mean (SD) of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, and intradialytic change in systolic blood pressure were 141 (21), 73 (12), 68 (15), and -10 (24) mmHg, respectively. In univariate analyses, the performance on cognitive tests primarily assessing executive function and processing speeds was worse among participants with lower diastolic blood pressure and higher pulse pressure. These relationships were not statistically significant, however, in multivariable analyses. There was no association between cognitive function and systolic blood pressure or intradialytic change in systolic blood pressure in either univariate or multivariable analyses. We found no association between different measures of blood pressure and cognitive function in cross-sectional analysis. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".