MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883729724 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy418

Orthostatic hypotension and symptomatic subclinical orthostatic hypotension increase risk of cognitive impairment: an integrated evidence review and analysis of a large older adult hypertensive cohort

2018· review· en· W2883729724 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruth Peters, Kaarin J. Anstey, Andrew Booth, Nigel Beckett, Jane Warwick, Riitta Antikaínen, Kenneth Rockwood, Jean Peters, Christopher J. Bulpitt

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Frailty NetworkUniversity of SheffieldNational Health and Medical Research CouncilDalhousie Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineOrthostatic vital signsSubclinical infectionCohortCognitive impairmentAnesthesiaCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: Systematically reviewing the literature found orthostatic hypotension (OH) to be associated with an increased risk of incident dementia but limited data were available in those at highest risk, the hypertensive oldest-old. Our aim was to analyse the relationship between OH and incident cognitive decline or dementia in this group and to synthesize the evidence base overall. Method and results: Participants aged ≥80 years, with hypertension, were from the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) cohort. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a fall of ≥15 mmHg in systolic and or ≥7 mmHg in diastolic pressure after 2 min standing from a sitting position. Subclinical orthostatic hypotension with symptoms (SOH) was defined as a fall

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207