Investigation of cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients in community of Beijing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the relationship between hypertension and cognitive function in community-based elderly people aged 60 and over in Beijing. Methods A total of 264 patients with hypertension and 271 cases of patients with normal blood pressure were investigated in this study. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) were used to determine cognitive change. Results The MMSE scores of total score showed no significant difference (27.98±2.68 vs. 28.37±2.81, t=1.634, P=0.103). The subscores of memory showed significantly decreased in hypertensive group (2.27±0.84 vs. 2.46±0.76, t=2.747, P=0.006). The MoCA scores of total score, subscores of visuospatial and executive, language, delayed recall were significantly decreased in hypertensive group (24.61±4.55 vs. 25.61±4.44, t=2.572, P=0.01; 3.78±1.37 vs. 4.04±1.22, t=2.355, P=0.019; 2.22±0.80 vs. 2.39±0.74, t=2.698, P=0.007; 2.39±1.60 vs. 2.66±1.60, t=1.978, P=0.048, respectively). Conclusions Hypertension has damage on the cognitive function of patients. MoCA is sensitive in clinical assessment of cognitive impairment. Key words: Hypertension; Cognition; Aged
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".