The correlation between cognitive impairment and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with cerebral small vessel disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study was aimed to analyze the correlation between cognitive impairment and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 108 patients with CSVD received in our hospital were selected. Assessment of cognitive impairment was by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). 39 cases were established as the impairment group and 69 cases were established as the normal group. 24 h ambulatory blood pressure was monitored, and changes in ambulatory blood pressure parameters between the two groups were compared. Also, the correlation between blood pressure parameters and MoCA score were analyzed. RESULTS: Comparisons of ambulatory systolic blood pressure, ambulatory pulse pressure and the ratios of night blood pressure reduction of patients in both groups showed statistical differences (p < 0.05), while the changes in diastolic blood pressure showed no statistical differences (p > 0.05). The comparison of the blood pressure curves in both groups showed statistical differences (p < 0.05). The ambulatory systolic blood pressure, ambulatory pulse pressure and the ratio of night blood pressure reduction of patients with CSVD showed prominently negative correlations with MoCA score (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairment and the ambulatory blood pressure of patients with CSVD are intimately correlated. The rise of ambulatory systolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, and the decline of blood pressure may represent risk factors for cognitive impairment in patients with CSVD. Improving blood pressure management will reduce the incidence of cognitive impairment caused by CSVD.
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) | 0.000 | 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".