Masked Hypertension is Associated With Cognitive Decline in Geriatric Age–Geriatric MASked Hypertension and Cognition (G-MASH-cog) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Masked hypertension is described as high ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) where office blood pressure measurements are normal. Effect of hypertension on cognitive functions is well known. However, the effect of masked hypertension on cognitive functions is unclear. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between masked hypertension and cognitive functions. Methods: One hundred-two normotensive patients admitted to the Geriatric Medicine outpatient clinic were included. Exclusion criteria were hypertension, dementia, major depression, and usage of antihypertensive medication. All patients underwent ABPM procedures and average daytime blood pressure, mean blood pressure at night and the 24-hour average blood pressure measurements were recorded. Comprehensive geriatric assessment tests and neuropsychological tests were administered. The diagnosis of masked hypertension was based on the definitions in the 2013 guideline of the European Society of Cardiology. Results: Forty-four patients (43%) were diagnosed with masked hypertension. Patients with masked hypertension had significantly lower scores on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) test, Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Test (QMCI), and Categorical Fluency Test than the normotensive patients (p = .011; p = .046; and p = .004; respectively). Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale test score was lower in masked hypertension, although this was not statistically significant. Conclusion: This study may indicate that geriatric patients with masked hypertension, compared to normotensive patients have decreased cognitive functions. Masked hypertension should be kept in mind while assessing older adults. When masked hypertension is detected, cognitive assessment is essential to diagnose possible cognitive dysfunction at early stage.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".