P2‐328: Performance of Hypertensive Subjects on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age is the main risk factor for dementia, and early stages of cognitive decline may be challenging to identify. Medical care for other age-related disorders such as arterial hypertension may also have significant impact on reducing dementia prevalence. Patients with suboptimal blood pressure (BP) control may remain with an elevated cardiovascular risk and risk for cognitive impairment. One hundred and fifty-six patients were screened: mean age 52.1 ± 11.8 years and a mean hypertension history of 10.3 ± 8.5 years and were compared with a group of normotensive subjects (age 51,4 ± 13.8 years). The control group was originally recruited from community sources. We gathered full medical and hypertension history, physical examination, laboratory screening and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Neuropsychological profile was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The MOCA scores were compared between normotensive and hypertensive subjects by an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) considering education as a control covariate. In the MoCA test (total score), patients with higher blood pressure level differed from the control group (respectively: 23.5 ± 0.5 x 24.9 ± 0.3; p = 0.017). Higher systolic blood pressure values were correlated with lower scores in the MoCA (r = -0,221; p = 0.001). The time of hypertension history was not correlated to greater cognitive impairment in the MoCA (r = -0015; p = 0.190), probably because this is a group of patients with good compliance to pharmacological treatment. The relationship between impairment on the MoCA with hypertension suggests a greater sensitivity for vascular-origin cognitive impairment. Use of the MoCA should improve sensitivity for the detection of cognitive impairment and treatment effects.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".