Hypertension is a potential risk factor for vascular dementia: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to conduct a meta-analysis of epidemiological and case control studies to determine whether arterial hypertension is specifically associated with an increased risk of vascular dementia (VaD). DESIGN: Longitudinal and cross-sectional prospective studies using operationalised criteria to define VaD and hypertension, with a normal control comparison group were systematically reviewed. Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, and PsycInfo data sources were searched along with reference lists of included articles and reviews. Original, prevalence or incidence studies were included if operationalised criteria for hypertension and VaD as well as number of cases with and without hypertension in VaD and non-demented groups were provided. Intervention studies and post-stroke and CADASIL studies were excluded. RESULTS: Eleven studies recruiting either volunteers or clinical patients, or which were population-based, examined a total of 768 people with VaD and 9857 control cases. A meta-analysis of the six longitudinal studies showed that hypertension was significantly associated with increased risk of incident VaD (odds ratio, OR: 1.59, CI: 1.29-1.95, p < 0.0001). A similar association between hypertension and the risk of prevalent VaD was found in the five cross-sectional studies (OR: 4.84, CI: 3.52-6.67, p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension significantly increases the risk of vascular dementia. The current meta-analysis highlights the potential importance of rigorous treatment of hypertension as a key measure to help prevent the development of VaD.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".