Impaired Cognitive Executive Dysfunction in Adult Treated Hypertensives with a Confirmed Diagnosis of Poorly Controlled Blood Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High blood pressure (BP) poses a major risk for cognitive decline. Aim of the study was to highlight the relationship between cognitive assessment scores and an effective therapeutic BP control. METHODS: By medical visit and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), we studied 302 treated hypertensives, subdivided according to office/daytime BP values into 120 with good (GC) and 98 poor (PC) BP control, 40 with "white coat hypertension" (WCH) and 44 a "masked-hypertension" phenomenon (MH). Patients underwent neuropsychological assessment to evaluate global cognitive scores at the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and attention/executive functions (Delayed Recall, Digit Span Forwards, Digit Span Backwards, Selective Attention, Verbal Fluency, Stroop Test and Clock Drawing). Carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) served as the index of vascular damage. RESULTS: There were no differences among the groups in terms of gender, age, education, metabolic assessment, clinical history and hypertension treatment. GC presented lower office and ambulatory BP values and IMT. PC performed worse than GC on global executive and attention functions, especially executive functions. In PC, office systolic BP (SBP) was significantly associated to the MMSE and FAB scores and, in particular, to Verbal Fluency, Stroop Errors and Clock Drawing tests. Office diastolic BP (DBP) was associated to Selective attention, nocturnal SBP to Digit Span backwards and Verbal Fluency. Worse cognitive assessment scores were obtained in WCH than GC. CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that in adult treated hypertensives, a poor BP control, as both doctor's office and daytime scores, is associated to impaired global cognitive and especially executive/attention functions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".