Orthostatic Hypotension, Hypotension and Cognitive Status: Early Comorbid Markers of Primary Dementia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have explored the relationship between orthostatic hypotension (OH) and cognition. The aim of this study was to examine the association of OH with cognitive impairment and decline in a cohort of Chinese elderly, and its effect modification by blood pressure (BP) status at baseline. METHOD: Among 2,321 community-living older adults, free of cardiovascular disease and stroke, baseline BP measurements were used to determine the presence of OH and categorize participants as hypotensives, normotensives or hypertensives. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was used to assess cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24). Cognitive decline (decrease in MMSE score by > or =1) was assessed from 1 to 2 years of follow-up for 1,347 participants without baseline cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Mean age of the subjects was 65.5 years and 381 (16.6%) showed OH. OH was not associated with cognitive impairment overall. However, among hypotensives, OH increased the odds of cognitive impairment (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 1.11-15.1), while hypertensives with OH showed reduced odds of cognitive impairment (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.26-0.90). Among cognitively intact participants, OH was not associated with cognitive decline overall or in BP subgroups. CONCLUSION: The increased risk of cognitive impairment in hypotensives with OH suggests that hypotension with OH may be an early comorbid marker of a primary incipient dementia.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".