Abstract P013: Elevated Resting Heart Rate in Mid-Life is Associated With Cognitive Change Over 20-years: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Resting heart rate (RHR) is an easily measured marker that is independently associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. There are several potential mechanisms by which RHR could affect cognitive function, but little is known about the relation of RHR and cognitive decline. We examined the association of RHR with 20 year cognitive decline in a community-based cohort. Methods: We studied 13,720 middle-aged white and black participants without a prior history of stroke or atrial fibrillation. RHR was obtained from a 12-lead resting electrocardiogram at baseline (1990-1992). Cognitive testing was measured at baseline and at up to two additional visits (1996-1998 and 2011-2013). A 3-test combined cognitive score was summed from these tests: delayed word recall, digit symbol substitution and word fluency. RHR was categorized into groups as < 60 (reference), 60-69, 70-79 and ≥80 bpm. We examined the association of RHR with cognitive decline using linear mixed-effects models adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, CVD risk factors, and AV nodal blockade use. ApoE genotype was included as a possible predictor. Imputation methods were used to account for attrition over follow-up. Results: Mean (SD) age of participants at baseline was 58 (6) years; 56% were women, 24% black. Average (SD) RHR was 66 (10) bpm, with RHR distribution: <60 (28%), 60-69 (40%), 70-79 (23%), >80 (9%) bpm. Over a mean follow-up of 20 years, participants in each RHR group exhibited cognitive decline (Table Part A). However, there was relatively greater global cognitive decline for those with RHR 70-79 and >80 bpm compared to <60 bpm (Part B). Results were consistent when excluding participants on AV nodal blockade medications. Conclusion: Elevated RHR is independently associated with greater cognitive decline over 20 years. Further studies are needed to determine whether the association is causal or secondary to another underlying process. If causal, future studies can determine whether modification of RHR can reduce cognitive decline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".