Comparison of Central, Ambulatory, Home and Office Blood Pressure Measurement as Risk Markers for Mild Cognitive Impairment in Hypertensive Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Aims:</i></b> We compared the role of central blood pressure (BP), ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), home-measured BP (HMBP) and office BP measurement as risk markers for the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> 70 hypertensive patients on combination medical therapy were studied. Their mean age was 64.97 ± 8.88 years. Eighteen (25.71%) were males and 52 (74.28%) females. All of the patients underwent full physical examination, laboratory screening, echocardiography, and office, ambulatory, home and central BP measurement. The neuropsychological tests used were: Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). SPSS 19 was used for the statistical analysis with a level of significance of 0.05. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The mean central pulse pressure values of patients with MCI were significantly (<i>p</i> = 0.016) higher than those of the patients without MCI. There was a weak negative correlation between central pulse pressure and the results from the MoCA and MMSE (<i>r</i> = –0.283, <i>p</i> = 0.017 and <i>r</i> = –0.241, <i>p</i> = 0.044, respectively). There was a correlation between ABPM and MCI as well as between HMBP and MCI. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The correlation of central BP with target organ damage (MCI) is as good as for the other types of measurements of BP (home and ambulatory). Office BP seems to be the poorest marker for the assessment of target organ damage.
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 | 0.001 | 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".