Blood Pressure and Cognitive Impairment in India and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between blood pressure (BP) and cognitive impairment in elderly populations in India and the United States in a cross-national epidemiological study. DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparisons, using standardized cognitive screening and BP measurements. PARTICIPANTS: We examined 4810 subjects 55 years and older, of whom 595 were 75 years and older, from Ballabgarh, India, and 636 subjects 75 years and older from the Monongahela Valley, Pennsylvania. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: General cognitive impairment, defined as scores at or below the 10th percentile of each cohort on a general mental status test-the Mini-Mental State Examination (United States) and the Hindi Mental State Examination (India)-and memory impairment, defined as scores at or below the 10th percentile of delayed recall of word lists at both sites. RESULTS: Mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were 115 and 75 mm Hg (India) and 141 and 76 mm Hg (United States). Logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and education or literacy was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cognitive impairment. In Ballabgarh, for every 10 mm Hg increase in SBP there was a 10% reduction in cognitive impairment (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), and there was a 13% reduction in cognitive impairment (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) with every 10 mm Hg increase in DBP. In the Monongahela Valley, a similar association between DBP and cognitive impairment did not remain significant after adjustment for confounders (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: In both Indian and American samples, lower DBP was inversely related to cognitive impairment, although not significantly in the latter. Low BP may be an effect of, or a potential risk factor for, degenerative brain disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".