Relationship Between Postprandial Hypotension and Mild Cognitive Impairment in elderly patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To explore the relationship between postprandial hypotension (PPH) and mild cognitive impariment(MCI) in elderly patients. Methods 296 senile inpatients with mean age of 78.95 years (range from 60 to 95 years) were recruited. 194 patients were male (65.5%). Their postprandial blood pressures were measured every 30 minutes, and then divided into 2 groups according to the definition of PPH: PPH group and non-PPH group. Cognitive function was assessed by Peking Union Medical College Hospital vision of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-P), then divided into 2 groups according to the definition of MCI: MCI group and normal cognition (NC) group. Results There are 146 patients met PPH criteria (49.3%). 125 patients had MCI (42.2%). Compared with the non-PPH group, the PPH group had lower MoCA score (24.76±3.96 vs 25.66±2.98, P=0.028). The incidence of MCI in PPH group was significantly higer than in non-PPH group (50.7% vs 34%, P=0.005). Logistic regression analysis showed that age, average education years and PPH independently correlated with MCI [OR(95%CI) was 1.06(1.02-1.11), 0.83(0.76-0.90), 1.98(1.16-3.36) respectively, all P<0.05]. Conclusion PPH may be an independent risk factor for MCI in elderly patients. Key words: Postprandial hypotension; Mild cognitive impariment; Ambulatory blood pressure
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".