Association Between Ambulatory 24-Hour Blood Pressure Levels and Brain Volume Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature has shown mixed results regarding the association between blood pressure levels and brain volume reduction. The objectives of this study were to determine whether high blood pressure levels were associated with focal brain volume reduction and whether high blood pressure-related focal brain volume reduction was associated with a decline in executive function performance. On the basis of a cross-sectional design, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements, as well as brain morphology from 3-dimensional magnetic resonance images, were assessed among 183 participants (mean, 65 ± 0.6 years; 62.4% women). Average levels of systolic and diastolic blood pressures, as well as dip, pulse pressure, and mean arterial blood pressure, were used as outcomes. Cortical gray and white matter volumes were determined by automatic calculation using Statistical Parametric Mapping segmentation. Folstein's Mini-Mental State Examination, digit span, part B of Trail Making, and Stroop tests were used to assess executive function performance. Sex, use of antihypertensive drugs, duration of hypertension, leukoaraiosis, body mass index, education level, and total brain matter volume were used as potential confounders. A significant blood pressure-related decrease in gray matter volume of the left supplementary motor areas (Brodmann area 6) and of the left superior and middle frontal gyrus (Brodmann area 8) was shown. No significant decrease was found with white matter volume. Blood pressure-related decreases in gray matter volume were significantly associated with a decline in executive function performance. The association of high blood pressure with brain volume reduction may in part explain blood pressure-related cognitive decline leading to dementia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".