Effect of Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability on Cognitive and Functional Decline in Mild to Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visit-to-visit blood pressure (BP) variability (VVV) is increasingly recognized as a marker of cardiovascular risk. Although implicated in cognitive decline, few studies are currently available assessing its effects on established dementia. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if VVV is associated with one-year rate of decline in measures of cognition and function in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the Doxycycline And Rifampicin for Alzheimer's Disease study. METHODS: Patients were included if ≥3 BP readings were available (n = 392). VVV was defined using different approaches including the coefficient of variation (CV) in BP readings between visits. Outcomes included rates of decline in the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (SADAS-cog), Standardized MMSE, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen and the Lawton-Brody activities of daily living (ADL) scale. RESULTS: Half of the patients (196/392) had a ≥4-point decline in the SADAS-cog over one-year. Using this cut-off, there were no statistically significant associations between any measures of VVV, for systolic or diastolic BP, with and without adjustment for potential confounders including treatment allocation, history of hypertension and use of anti-hypertensive and cognitive enhancing medications. Multiple regression models examining the association between systolic BP CV by quartile and decline over one-year likewise showed no clinically significant effects, apart from a U-shaped pattern of ADL decline of borderline clinical significance.∥Conclusions: This observational study does not support recent research showing that VVV predicts cognitive decline in AD. Further studies are needed to clarify its effects on ADL in AD.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".