COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT IN TREATED PATIENTS WITH HOME MEASURED BLOOD PRESSURE NOT IN THE RECOMMENDED RANGE: PP.26.45
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The process of understanding and early diagnosis of the entire group of disorders under the umbrella term vascular cognitive impairment (CI) (cerebrovascular disease (CVD); multiple cortico-subcortical, silent or strategic infarcts, small vessel disease, as well as Alzheimer's disease pathology with co-existing CVD lesions) is important, because the number of demented people is progressively rising and there is a tendency to progress towards vascular dementia. The data in this abstract is based on the preliminary results of an ongoing research, which aims to analyze if there is any correlation between home measured blood pressure (HMBP) values and the results from several screening neuropsychological tests (NPTs). The target group is a population of treated Bulgarian hypertensive people on frequently changed therapy, whose BP control was suboptimal. Design and Methods: During a 3 months’ period we selected 152 patients, whose HMBP was not in the recommended range: 44 female (29.1%) and 108 (70.9%) male, mean age 66.88 ± 9.724 years, 24.2% with paroxysmal or chronic atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation therapy. Mean hypertension history was 13.74 ± 11.53 years. The maximal values of HMBP were: systolic (SBP) 194.38 ± 26.00 mmHg and diastolic (DBP) 109.29 ± 16.61 mmHg. The usually registered HMBP values were: SBP 140.8 ± 18.51 mmHg and DBP 86.38 ± 11.59 mmHg. The mean BP was 104.50 ± 12.79 mmHg and mean pulse pressure 54.48 ± 13.52 mmHg. We used a battery of screening NPTs: a standardized Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test (26.82 ± 3.132), the more specific for early CI Montreal Cognitive assessment (MoCA), translated and validated in Bulgarian for the first time (23.51 ± 3.839) and Hachinski Ischemic Score, used to differ cases with vascular from those with non-vascular CI. Results: Correlation analysis indicates that there is a correlation between the values of HMBP and the results from sensitive screening NPTs (namely MoCA). Conclusion: These results suggest that the use of highly sensitive NPTs in clinical practice might be useful in early diagnosis of CI in hypertensive patients with suboptimal HMBP control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".