Intensive control of hypertension and risk of Alzheimer's dementia in older adults with depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intensive control of hypertension has been reported to decrease risk of cognitive decline. However, the effect of this in older adults with hypertension and comorbid depression is not well understood. We aim to identify whether intensive control of systolic blood pressure (BP) is associated with reduced risk of Alzheimer's dementia (AD) in a clinical population. METHODS: Using data from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center, we conducted survival analyses in older adults with normal cognition at baseline and treated hypertension. We also examined those with comorbid depression, to determine if intensive control of systolic BP (≤120 mmHg) was associated with reduced risk of AD. RESULTS: In all older adults with treated hypertension (n = 4505), 298 (6.6%) developed AD during a median follow-up duration of 4.2 years. In the comorbid depression subgroup (n = 1327), 152 (11.5%) developed AD. Intensive control of systolic BP was not significantly associated with reduced risk of AD in the overall sample (HR 1.13, 95%, 0.79-1.64). However, in the comorbid depression subgroup, intensive control of systolic BP (≤120 mmHg) was associated with increased risk of AD (HR 1.49, 95%, 1.03-2.15) compared to standard control (121-139 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical population of older adults with hypertension and comorbid depression, we found that an intensive systolic BP target of ≤120 mmHg was associated with increased risk of AD. While these findings are preliminary, they suggest that a more cautious approach to hypertension treatment may be warranted in this vulnerable subgroup.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".