Influence on cognitive function by hypertension and related risk factors in elderly people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the relationship between cognitive function and blood pressure in the elderly,as well as the influence of related risk factors.Methods A total of 175 patients over 60 years old were categorized in 2 groups:124 hypertensives and 51 normotensives.The Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA)was used to determine cognitive change.The parameters of blood pressure and biochemical indicators were observed.SPSS 13.0 was used to perform the statistic analysis.Results The MoCA scores of total score,subscores of visuospatial and executive,attention,language,delayed recall were significantly decreased in hypertensive group(P0.05).24 h mean diastolic blood pressure(MDBP),daily mean diastolic blood pressure(dMDBP) and the proportion of normal circadian rhythm were significantly increased in hypertensive patients whose MoCA scores were normal(P0.01).Age was negative linear correlation with the MoCA scores.Circadian rhythm and dMDBP were positive linear correlation with the MoCA scores.Conclusions MoCA is sensitive in clinical assessment of cognitive impairment.The data suggest that age,circadian rhythm and dMDBP appeared to be independent variables for predicting the MoCA scores in patients with hypertension.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".