MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2897611669 · doi:10.1161/str.49.suppl_1.tp187

Abstract TP187: 24-hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure, Cognitive Performance, and Cerebral Microbleeds in the Elderly

2018· article· en· W2897611669 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annlia Paganini‐Hill, David Floriolli, Natalie B. Bryant, Dana Greenia, María M. Corrada, Claudia H. Kawas, Mark Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryBlood pressureInternal medicineCardiologyCohortAmbulatory blood pressureDementiaNeuropsychologyDipperMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Multiple studies suggest a role for blood pressure (BP) variability and nocturnal BP dipping in the development of cerebrovascular disease and cognitive impairment. We analyzed cross-sectional data from a cohort of 90+ year-olds to test the hypothesis that BP variables are associated with cognitive function and cerebral microbleeds (CMB). Methods: Study subjects were 121 participants (mean age = 93 years, 63% female) in The 90+ Study , a study of aging in individuals aged 90 years and older from a California retirement community. Participants were given a neuropsychological test battery to determine cognitive status. All subjects underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP measurement with a automatic device. MRI scans were available for 26 participants. Over three time frames (24-hour, daytime, nighttime) and separately for SBP and DBP, we represented BP by mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation, average real variability, percentage of high measurements (≥140 mmHg for SBP and ≥90 mmHg for DBP), percentage of low measurements (<90 mmHg for SBP and <60 mmHg for DBP), and nocturnal dip (% change of mean night BP from mean day BP). Differences in means of BP variables between groups based on cognitive status (normal vs cognitively impaired not demented (CIND)/demented) and presence/absence of CMB were tested using t-tests. Results: Cognitive status was normal in 97 subjects, CIND/demented in 24. Mean nocturnal dips (both SBP and DBP) differed significantly between the two groups, with normal participants having on average greater dip levels (6.6 vs 1.3, p=0.006 for SBP and 11 vs 4.4, p=0.002 for DBP). No other BP variable showed a large or significant difference. Greater nocturnal dips were also related to better performance on cognitive test scores related to language, recent memory, and visual-spatial ability. MRI findings showed subjects with CMB (n=18) had higher SD of daytime SBP than those without (n=8) (20 vs 16, p=0.03). Those with CMB also had a greater proportion of high nighttime DBP (≥90 mmHg) readings (3.6 vs 0, p=0.03). Conclusions: Among 90+ year olds, altered nocturnal BP dipping may have a role in cognitive impairment, while SBP variation and diastolic hypertension may contribute to development of microbleeds.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→