A study of mild cognitive impairment in veterans: role of hypertension and other confounding factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypertension has shown to be an important risk factor for the decline in cognitive function. Aim of our study is to investigate the presence of cognitive impairment of the elders with hypertension and other confounding factors. METHODS: This study was conducted on 400 veterans who were matched one-to-one with the confounding factors for assessing the presence of mild cognitive impairment using both MMSE and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The 13 related factors of patient data were studied. RESULTS: The prevalence rate of cognitive impairment was 29.25%. Age (OR 2.679, 95%CI 1.663-6.875), sleep impairment (OR 1.117, 95%CI 1.754-7.422), uncontrolled hypertension (OR 1.522, 95%CI 1.968-4.454), type 2 diabetes (OR 2.464, 95%CI 1.232-4.931), and hyperlipidaemia (OR 1.411, 95%CI 1.221-8.988) are the risk factors for the cognitive deterioration, while the protective factors are high level of education (OR 0.032, 95%CI 0.007-0.149) and regular exercise (OR 0.307, 95%CI 0.115-0.818). DISCUSSION: Because some vascular disease risk factors, such as hypertension, can be treated effectively, cognitive decline related to these risk factors, and vascular disease per se, may be prevented or its course modified through more aggressive treatment and improved compliance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".