Abstract MP03: Associations Of 24-hour Blood Pressure Patterns With Cognitive Function In Healthy Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Abnormal 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) patterns have been associated with diminished cognitive function in hypertensive and very elderly populations. The relationship between ABPM patterns in community-living older adults is unknown. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in which ABPM, in-clinic blood pressure, and cognitive function measures were obtained in 354 community living older adults. We used multiple linear regression to examine the associations of in-clinic and ABPM with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA [range 0-30 with lower levels indicating worse cognition]), adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and comorbid medical conditions. Results: The mean age was 72 years, 68% were female, and 13% were African American; 45% had a diagnosis of hypertension. In-clinic blood pressure measurements were not significantly associated with cognitive function after adjustment. In contrast, less nighttime systolic dipping percentage (Figure) and lower 24-hour average diastolic blood pressure obtained from the ABPM were both significantly associated with worse cognitive function. In the final model, each 1% less night-time dipping was associated with 0.25 points (0.1-0.9) lower MoCA score, whereas each 10 mmHg lower diastolic blood pressure was associated with 0.59 (0.14-1.05) points lower MoCA score. Conclusions: In community-living older persons, less nighttime systolic dipping and lower 24-hour diastolic blood pressure obtained by ABPM were associated with worse cognitive function whereas clinic based blood pressure measurements were not. Future studies should examine whether 24-hour diastolic blood pressure and nighttime systolic dipping may predict future risk for cognitive impairment. (Legend: Dipping quartiles: Q1 -17.8% to 6.0%; Q2 6.1% to 11.0%; Q3 11.1% to 16.3%; Q4 16.4% to 34.2%)
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".