Hypertension Severity Is Associated With Impaired Cognitive Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most evidence of target-organ damage in hypertension (HTN) is related to the kidneys and heart. Cerebrovascular and cognitive impairment are less well studied. Therefore, this study analyzed changes in cognitive function in patients with different stages of hypertension compared to nonhypertensive controls. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a cross-sectional study, 221 (71 normotensive and 150 hypertensive) patients were compared. Patients with hypertension were divided into 2 stages according to blood pressure (BP) levels or medication use (HTN-1: BP, 140-159/90-99 or use of 1 or 2 antihypertensive drugs; HTN-2: BP, ≥160/100 or use of ≥3 drugs). Three groups were comparatively analyzed: normotension, HTN stage 1, and HTN stage 2. The Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and a validated comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests that assessed 6 main cognitive domains were used to determine cognitive function. Compared to the normotension and HTN stage-1, the severe HTN group had worse cognitive performance based on Mini-Mental State Examination (26.8±2.1 vs 27.4±2.1 vs 28.0±2.0; P=0.004) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (23.4±3.7 vs 24.9±2.8 vs 25.5±3.2; P<0.001). On the neuropsychological tests, patients with hypertension had worse performance in language, processing speed, visuospatial abilities, and memory. Age, hypertension stage, and educational level were the best predictors of cognitive impairment in patients with hypertension in different cognitive domains. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairment was more frequent in patients with hypertension, and this was related to hypertension severity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".