Cognitive Dysfunction and Greater Visit‐to‐Visit Systolic Blood Pressure Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether variability in blood pressure (BP) is negatively associated with performance on cognitive testing. DESIGN: Multinational, longitudinal, observational cohort study. SETTING: The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with a screening diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or normal cognition (N=626). MEASUREMENTS: Mean, variance, and maximum BP were calculated based on measures collected from screening to 36 months. Analysis of covariance models were used to determine the association between BP measures and cognitive scores at 36 months after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Greater variability in systolic (P<.05) but not diastolic (P>.18) BP was associated with worse global (Modified Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Component and Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes) and executive (Trail-Making Test Part B, Animal Fluency, and Vegetable Fluency) function and episodic memory (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test Total Score). CONCLUSION: There is a clinically significant association between greater systolic BP variability and greater cognitive dysfunction. These results should be verified in other well-characterized cohorts, and the neuroanatomical pathophysiology underlying the observed greater cognitive impairment should be further explored.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".