Comparative study of pharmacological correction strategies for moderate cognitive impairment in hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : to investigate the prevalence of cognitive impairment (CI) and possibilities of its pharmacological correction in hypertensive patients, by comparatively evaluating the efficiency of different treatment options: antihypertensive therapy and its combinations with vasoactive drugs and the dopamine receptor agonist piribedil. Patients and methods . At the first stage of the investigation, the prevalence of CI was assessed in a continuous sample of hypertensive patients (n=350). The second stage included a naturalistic comparative study of the efficiency of various therapeutic strategies for moderate CI (MCI) in patients with Stage 1–2 hypertension (n=91). This investigation lasted 48 weeks and consisted of a 24-week treatment period and a 24-weeks follow-up period. Results and discussion . CI was diagnosed in 83.4% of patients in the continuous sample, while it reached the level of dementia in 16.9%. Therapy aimed at achieving and maintaining blood pressure (BP) targets did not lead to the regression of MCI. However, BP correction in combination with a 24-week piribedil therapy cycle was optimal in patients with CI. By the end of treatment, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCa) scores increased from 24.5Ѓ}0.8 to 27.5Ѓ}0.6 (p<0.05) and from 24.9Ѓ}0.7 to 27.1Ѓ}0.8 (p<0.05) in the groups of patients randomized to supplemental piribedil alone or in combination with nootropic and/or vascular drugs, respectively. There were no intergroup differences in the groups of patients randomized to supplemental piribedil. The time course of cognitive changes in the further follow-up period showed a longterm positive effect of piribedil on cognitive function. Conclusion . It is necessary to regularly screen for cognitive dysfunction in hypertensive patients. The most effective treatment in combination with a long-term piribedil therapy cycle for hypertension-associated MCI was to promote the achievement and retention of blood pressure targets.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".