Relationship Between Blood Pressure Variability and Cognitive Function in Elderly Patients With Good Blood Pressure Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although higher blood pressure (BP) levels and BP variability have been associated with cognitive impairment, data are sparse regarding the relationship between BP variability and cognitive function in elderly patients with well BP control. METHODS: We analyzed 232 ambulatory patients with one or more cardiovascular risk factors. All patients underwent ambulatory BP monitoring and the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J). RESULTS: The mean age was 77.7 ± 8.3 years; 33.6% were male, and 85.3% were taking antihypertensive drugs. The average 24-hour BP level was 118.7 ± 10.0/68.3 ± 6.4 mm Hg. When we divided the weighted SD of systolic BP (SBP) as a measure of BP variability into quartiles, the top quartile group (≥19.6 mm Hg) had a significantly lower total MoCA-J score (15.4 [95% confidence interval 14.2-16.7] vs. 17.9 [17.2-18.6], P = 0.001) and lower scores on several domains, visuoexecutive (2.2 [1.9-2.6] vs. 2.8 [2.6-2.9], P = 0.012), abstraction (1.0 [0.7-1.2] vs. 1.3 [1.1-1.4], P = 0.015), attention (2.8 [2.4-3.1] vs. 3.6 [3.4-3.8], P = 0.001), and naming (2.1 [1.9-2.3] vs. 2.5 [2.4-2.6], P = 0.001) than quartiles 1 through 3 combined, after adjustment for age and 24-hour SBP. These associations were not found in the quartiles of 24-hour SBP. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with well ambulatory BP control, higher BP variability but not average ambulatory BP level was associated with cognitive impairment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".