P5401Relationship between psychosocial risk factors and cognitive impairment in hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive impairment is a common condition in elderly patients. Psychosocial risk factors may have a role in the development of cognitive impairment. Current ESC guidelines recommend screening for psychosocial risk factors, but this recommendation is not part of current daily practice. Purpose: The aim of the study was mapping the relationship between psychosocial risk factors and cognitive dysfunction in hypertensive patients admitted to a cardiovascular rehabilitation unit. Methods: A number of 269 consecutive hypertensive patients (average age 68.39 years ±9.64 SD) admitted to a cardiovascular rehabilitation unit were included in our study group. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) psychosocial screening instrument was used to assess psychosocial risk factors. Cognitive function was tested with three different tests, the Mini Mental State Examination test (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Asessment test (MoCA), and the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) test. The psychosocial risk of patients identified with cognitive impairment was compared with those with normal cognitive function using the chi square test. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS version 23.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".