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 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".