Effects of early blood pressure reduction on cognitive function in patients with acute ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of early blood pressure reduction on cognitive function in patients with acute ischemic stroke remains unknown. AIM: We tested whether antihypertensive treatment would reduce cognitive impairment in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: In the China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke, patients with elevated blood pressure were randomly assigned to receive antihypertensive treatment or to discontinue all hypertensive medications within 48 h of onset. Cognitive function was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment at 3 months after randomization in a subsample of 638 participants. RESULTS: Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 21.5 mmHg in the antihypertensive treatment group and 13.9 mmHg in the control group within 24 h after randomization (P < 0.001). Mean systolic blood pressure was 134.9 mmHg in the antihypertensive treatment group and 141.6 mmHg in the control group at day 14 after randomization (P < 0.001). Median Mini-Mental State Examination score was 26 and Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 22 in both the antihypertensive treatment and control groups at 3 months. An Mini-Mental State Examination < 24 was present in 30.9% of patients in the antihypertensive treatment group compared with 29.7% in the control group (odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.75-1.48; P = 0.75). Likewise, proportions of patients with Montreal Cognitive Assessment < 26 were similar between the antihypertensive treatment (70.6%) and control (70.7%) groups (odds ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.70-1.40; P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicated that early blood pressure reduction with antihypertensive medication in patients with acute ischemic stroke had no effect on cognitive impairment at 3 months.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".