Pulse pressure and mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with suboptimal blood pressure (BP) control may remain with an elevated cardiovascular risk and risk for cognitive impairment. Pulse pressure (PP) assessed with ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or self-measurement so far has been an underestimated risk factor for target organ damage. METHODS: One hundred and forty-eight patients were screened: 51 men (34.5%) and 97 women (65.5%), mean age 64.16 ± 11.18 years and a mean hypertension history of 13.1 ± 11.05 years. We gathered full medical and hypertension history, physical examination, laboratory screening and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Neuropsychological profile was assessed with tests (NPTs): Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). RESULTS: Regression analysis found a correlation between day and night PP and NPT results. Mann-Whitney Test (α less than 0.05) was used to find a significant difference (P = 0.02 for MMSE) in the mean values of the NPT results between the groups with PP more than 50 and PP 50 mmHg or less. The result was not age dependent. There was also a significant difference between mean values of day-PP (P = 0.01) and night-PP (P = 0.02) between patients with cognitive impairment and those without (respectively more than 55 mmHg and less than 55 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Elevated PP during the day, the night or with self-measurement is correlated with cognitive impairment. It is a marker of large artery stiffness and target organ damage not only in the very elderly, but also in younger individuals (mean age 64.16 years).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".