MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080532743 · doi:10.1037/a0025631

Nonlinear blood pressure effects on cognition in old age: Separating between-person and within-person associations.

2011· article· en· W2080532743 on OpenAlexaff
Valgeir Thorvaldsson, Ingmar Skoog, Scott M. Hofer, Anne Börjesson‐Hanson, Svante Östling, Simona Sacuiu, Boo Johansson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute on AgingVetenskapsrådetNational Institutes of HealthForskningsrådet för Arbetsliv och SocialvetenskapSwedish Brain PowerRiksbankens Jubileumsfond
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyBlood pressurePerceptionAssociation (psychology)PopulationDevelopmental psychologyMultilevel modelDemographyMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Midlife hypertension is associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment in later life. The association between blood pressure (BP) in older ages and cognition is less clear. In this study we provide estimates of between-person and within-person associations of BP and cognition in a population-based sample (N = 382) followed from age 70 across 12 occasions over 30 years. Between-person associations refer to how individual differences in BP relates to individual differences in cognition. Within-person associations refer to how individual and time specific changes in BP relate to variation in cognition. Hierarchical linear models were fitted to data from three cognitive measurements (verbal ability, spatial ability, and perceptual speed) while accounting for demographic and health-related covariates. We found consistent nonlinear between-person associations between diastolic BP (DBP) and cognition, such that both low (<75 mmHg) and high (>95 mmHg) pressure were associated with poorer cognition. Within-person decreases in systolic BP (SBP) and DBP were associated with decreases in perceptual speed. Notably, between-person and within-person estimates did not reveal similar associations, suggesting the need to separate the two effects in the analysis of associations between BP and cognition in old age.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and AgingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207