SEX AND HYPERTENSION: INFLUENTIAL FACTORS IN COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE AFTER PHYSICAL AND COGNITIVE INTERVENTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of developing hypertension increases with aging. Once present, cognitive decline is more likely. Importantly, the impact on cognition can be minimized with cognitive or physical training. However, at present it is unknown if hypertension modulates the gains that interventions have on cognition in healthy older adults. Here, we aimed to identify if participants with hypertension improve cognition similarly to those without. Moreover, given the differences in cardiovascular outcomes between men and women, it was of interest to investigate the influence of sex on this relationship between cognitive improvement and hypertension. Sixty-eight healthy older adults (70.6 years, 22 males) were randomized to one of the following: cognitive, aerobic, or gross motor skills training. All interventions were three one hour sessions per week for 12-weeks. Hypertension was identified by a geriatrician through resting blood pressure or use of antihypertensive medication. All participants completed a Stroop task (inhibition) on a tablet before and after the intervention. Forty-eight participants were categorized as hypertensive (15 males). There were no baseline differences for age, sex, fitness level, or inhibition response time (p >0.05). A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a time*sex*presence of hypertension interaction. Women with hypertension, compared to those without, improved cognitive performance significantly more, whereas men showed the opposite effect, regardless of training group. These results suggest that sex and presence of hypertension can modulate exercise and cognitive training effects on cognition in older adults. However, these preliminary, but noteworthy, results need to be confirmed in larger samples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".