MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136915425 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2010.05.1585

P3‐091: Ambulatory blood pressure and cognitive function in nondemented older adults: Findings of the maracaibo aging study

2010· article· en· W2136915425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carmen A. Gonzalez-Rojas, Gloria Pino‐Ramírez, Angelica G. Partida, Eglé R. Silva, Gladys E. Maestre

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressureAmbulatory blood pressureMedicineRepeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological StatusInternal medicineCardiologyCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPrehypertensionNeuropsychologyDementiaPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the influence of day/night blood pressure (BP) variations on specific cognitive functions. The goal of this study was to determine the effects of levels and variation in blood pressure, assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), on specific cognitive domains in healthy, non-demented, community dwelling elders. A comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests was used to evaluate cognitive functions. 400 female and 195 male participants of the Maracaibo Aging Study (MAS) underwent ABPM with Spacelabs 90207 monitors for 24 h. The subjects also underwent neuropsychological, neuropsychiatric, physical assessments, and laboratory tests that included total plasma homocysteine (Hcy), clinical chemistry, and ApoE genotyping. Multiple regression models were used to evaluate relationships between results of cognitive tests and BP parameters. Sitting casual and median 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) but not systolic blood pressure (SBP), were significantly lower in women than men. 75.5% of women and 77.7% of men had high blood pressure (>140/90 mmHg); 43.2% of women and 29% of men had isolated systolic hypertension (>140/10% nocturnal drop in SBP were classified as dippers, which included 23.8% of women and 33.3% of men (p = 0.02). After adjustment for age, education, Hcy, and ApoE-∊4 status, there were significant gender differences in the associations between cognitive functions and blood pressure parameters. In women, scores on BVRT Matching and delayed recall tests had significant negative correlations with 24 h and nocturnal SBP. In men, BVRT Matching scores, but not delayed recall tests, were correlated with nocturnal SBP. Male dippers had higher scores than non-dippers in the tests of similarities, BVRT Matching, and delayed recognition, but female dippers and non-dippers did not exhibit different performances in any of the cognitive variables. Specific cognitive functions were related to median day and night SBP and DBP, assessed by ABPM, but the relationships differed between genders. Reduced nocturnal BP drop was associated with specific cognitive deficits in men. Further studies are required to clarify the mechanisms underlying these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207