COGNITIVE STATUS OF PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE ASSOCIATED WITH ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION AND PREDICTORS OF ITS PERFORMANCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The cognitive status in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) associated with arterial hypertension (AH) has not been adequately studied. The aim of the work was to study the cognitive status of patients with COPD associated with arterial hypertension and establish predictors of its deterioration. Materials and methods. 30 patients with COPD were examined, 30 patients with COPD associated with hypertension (COPD + AH), 30 healthy males. Researchers evaluated the function of external respiration, determined the gas composition of the blood, questionnaired using forms for Beck depression, Spielberg-Hanin anxiety, and two-time testing using the Montreal cognitive function assessment scale (MoCA). Results. Patients with COPD and COPD + AH had low MoCA scores compared to controls, but were comparable. Repeated testing with a difference of 12 months showed the presence of negative dynamics in both nosological groups and revealed correlations between the total score on the MoCA scale and the partial pressure of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood, levels of reactive anxiety, and depression. A reliably significant predictor of deterioration was the presence of exacerbations of COPD. Conclusions. In patients with COPD associated with hypertension, a decrease in cognitive function was detected; MoCA scores are predicted by exacerbations over the past year.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".