Silent cerebral white matter lesions in middle-aged essential hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and a history of cardiovascular disease are the most important factors related to the presence of cerebral white matter lesions (WML), which are a common finding in elderly people. This study investigates which factors related to hypertension per se are associated with the presence of WML in asymptomatic, middle-aged, never-treated essential hypertensive patients. METHODS: A total of 66 untreated essential hypertensive patients of both genders, aged 50-60 years, with neither diabetes mellitus nor evidence of cardiovascular disease, were studied. Hypertensive patients were classified into two groups according to the presence or absence of WML in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: A total of 39 (59.1%) hypertensives showed no WML in brain MRI, and 27 (40.9%) exhibited the presence of WML. Compared with hypertensives without WML, patients with WML showed significantly higher values of both office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic, diastolic, mean and pulse pressure. No differences were observed in either the nocturnal fall of blood pressure, or in blood pressure variability, assessed by 24 h standard deviation, among hypertensives with WML. In contrast, the nocturnal decline of heart rate was significantly blunted in patients with WML, compared with those without WML. CONCLUSIONS: Cerebral white matter lesions are a common finding in asymptomatic middle-aged essential hypertensives. The severity of blood pressure elevation seems to be the most important factor related to the presence of WML. Neither the circadian rhythm nor the long-term variability of blood pressure were related to WML.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".