P3‐448: PREDICTION OF COGNITIVE STATUS AND 5‐YEAR SURVIVAL FOR ELDERLY WITH HYPERTENSION BY USING THE NEUROCOGNITIVE FRAILTY INDEX (NFI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is the most common modifiable risk factor for stroke and it is associated with increased risk of stroke and stroke related dementia (Kalaria, Akinyemi and Ihare, 2016). The aim of this research was to determine whether the Neurocognitive Frailty Index (NFI, Pakzad et al., 2017) could help to predict cognitive changes in elderly people with hypertension. Participants in this study were drawn from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) which was conducted in three waves but in this study only data from wave 1 and 2 were used: CSHA-1 (1991 to 1992) and CSHA-2 (1996 to 1997) for prediction of 5-year cognitive changes. The current analysis focused on the 997 participants who received a consensus diagnosis of no cognitive impairment (NCI) or cognitive impairment but not dementia (CIND) on CSHA-1. Samples included those who completed neuropsychological tests at CSHA-1 and received a clinical diagnostic assessment at CSHA-1 and CSHA-2 (n = 1228). The CIND category was contained to individuals whose level of cognitive impairment was measured to be greater than the NCI group but less than the dementia group. NFI was defined as a combined score of 41 physical and mental components (in 8 cognitive domains) as they were available in the dataset (NFI has 42 components but we withdraw hypertension). Cognitive score (measure by 3MS) at follow-up, and mortality were outcome. At baseline, the mean age of sample was 80.4 years (SD=6.9; Range of 66-100). The NFI mean was 9.61 (SD=6.08) and ranged from 0 to 33). In the multiple linear regression analysis, adjusted for age, gender, education and 3MS at baseline, the NFI and blood pressure are significantly related to outcome (3MS) (p<0.05). The elderly had significantly different mean NFI in two group of (with and without) hypertension. NFI was significantly associated with cognitive changes for the elderly with hypertension. Given that the NFI is proving to be a valuable tool to assess the risk of developing dementia and that our results have established an association with hypertension, further investigation is needed to clarify the types of modifiable hypertension risk factors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".