Blood Pressure Responses to Hypertension Treatment and Trends in Cognitive Function in Patients With Initially Difficult‐to‐Treat Hypertension: A Retrospective Subgroup Analysis of the Observational Study on Cognitive Function and SBP Reduction (OSCAR) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Observational Study on Cognitive Function and SBP Reduction (OSCAR) provided opportunities to examine the influence of eprosartan on trends in cognitive performance in a large population of patients with difficult-to-treat hypertension (DTTH). A total of 4649 patients diagnosed retrospectively with DTTH, defined as systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) ≥140/90 mm Hg despite use of at least 3 antihypertensive drugs during the month preceding the baseline visit comprised the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort. The patients were given eprosartan-based antihypertension therapy (EBT; 600 mg/d). Blood pressure and cognitive function parameters included significant (P<.001) differences for DTTH vs non-DTTH patients such as older age, body mass index, SBP and pulse pressure (PP), and lower Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score. After EBT for 6 months, SBP/DBP in DTTH was 138.8±12.2/81.9±7.4 (ΔSBP-26±15.7; ΔDBP-11.4±9.8); PP was 57.0±10.8 (ΔPP-14.5±13.8) (all P<.001 vs baseline and non-DTTH group). A total of 2576 patients (87.4%) responded to EBT (ie, SBP <140 mm Hg and/or ΔSBP ≥15 mm Hg, or DBP <90 mm Hg and/or ΔDBP ≥10 mm Hg); 1426 DTTH patients (48.4%) achieved normalized SBP/DBP (ie, SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP <90 mm Hg). ΔPP in DTTH-isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) was -18.0±13.3 mm Hg (P=.003 vs DTTH-systolic-diastolic hypertension). End-of-EBT mean MMSE was 27.5±3.0 (P<.001 vs baseline). Blood pressure responses after EBT coincided with stabilization/improvement of MMSE in this retrospective investigation in DTTH patients. The average improvement in MMSE in DTTH patients was similar to that in non-DTTH patients. EBT effects on PP may be relevant to the evolution of MMSE in DTTH-ISH patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".