White-coat and masked hypertension and cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Patients with isolated office or isolated ambulatory hypertension are at an elevated cardio-vascular risk than the general population. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the risk for cognitive impairment in patients with white-coat or masked hypertension, and to compare it with risk of cognitive impairment in the other hypertensive patients. Methods: A prospective study of 953 hypertensive patients on combination therapy. Mean age was 66.01±9.98 years. 359 (37.67%) were males and 594 (62.32%) females. 269 (28.23%) of the patients were reevaluated after a mean period of 12 months (min.6 and max.20). Blood pressure was registered with self-measurement, office-measurement and ambulatory monitoring with regard to the recommendations. Neuropsychological screening for mild cognitive impairment was conducted via Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results: 114 (11.96%) of the patients were with "white-coat" hypertension and 126 (13.22%) - with "masked" hypertension. 49 (42.98%) of the patients with "white-coat" and 90 (71.43%) of those with "masked" hypertension had mild cognitive impairment. There wasn't any significant difference between the mean values of neuropsychological tests' results (at p=0.05) between the standard group of hypertensive patients and those with "white-coat" or "masked" hypertension. Conclusion: Patients with "white-coat" and "masked" hypertension are at the same risk for cognitive impairment (as a target organ damage), as the other hypertensive patients. They should be screened for cognitive impairment. This is important for the timely prophylaxis of 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".