Is Baseline Orthostatic Hypotension Associated With a Decline in Global Cognitive Performance at 4‐Year Follow‐Up? Data From TILDA (The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It is postulated that orthostatic hypotension ( OH ), a reduction in blood pressure (≥20/10 mm Hg) within 3 minutes of standing, may increase cognitive decline because of cerebral hypoperfusion. This study assesses the impact of OH on global cognition at 4-year follow-up, and the impact of age and hypertension on this association. Methods and Results Data from waves 1 and 3 of TILDA (The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing) were used. Baseline blood pressure response to active stand was assessed using beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring. Two measures of OH were used-at 40 seconds ( OH 40) and 110 seconds ( OH 110). Global cognition was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Mixed-effects Poisson regression assessed whether baseline OH was associated with a decline in global cognition at 4-year follow-up. The analysis was repeated, stratifying by age (age 50-64 years and age ≥65 years), and including an interaction between OH and hypertension. Baseline OH 110 was associated with an increased error rate in Montreal Cognitive Assessment at follow-up (incident rate ratio 1.17, P=0.028). On stratification by age, the association persists in ages 50 to 64 years (incident rate ratio 1.25, P=0.048), but not ages ≥65 years. Including an interaction with hypertension found those with co-existent OH 110 and hypertension (incident rate ratio 1.27, P=0.011), or OH 40 and hypertension (incident rate ratio 1.18, P=0.017), showed an increased error rate; however, those with isolated OH 110, OH 40, or isolated hypertension did not. Conclusions OH is associated with a decline in global cognition at 4-year follow-up, and this association is dependent on age and co-existent hypertension.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".