Ankle-Brachial Index, Cognitive Impairment and Cerebrovascular Disease in a Chinese Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have assessed the association between ankle-brachial index (ABI) and cognition, mainly using brief cognitive tests. We investigated whether ABI was associated with cognition independent of neuroimaging markers of cerebrovascular disease. METHODS: Chinese subjects (n = 278, aged ≥60 years) were recruited from the ongoing Epidemiology of Dementia in Singapore (EDIS) Study. Ankle and brachial blood pressures were measured, and low ABI was defined as ≤0.9. A neuropsychological battery was utilized to determine cognition. Cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND) and dementia were diagnosed according to standard diagnostic criteria. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to obtain semiquantitative and quantitative markers of cerebrovascular disease and atrophy. RESULTS: A low ABI was related to the presence of intracranial stenosis (odds ratio, OR = 1.71; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.13-2.59), but not with the presence of infarcts, microbleeds or grey matter, white matter and white matter lesion volumes. Furthermore, a low ABI was associated with poorer overall cognitive function and CIND-moderate/dementia (OR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.11-4.59), independent of cardiovascular risk factors, and the MRI markers related to cerebrovascular disease and atrophy. CONCLUSION: We found an association between a low ABI and cognitive impairment, independent of any MRI marker of cerebral small vessel disease or large artery atherosclerotic disease.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".