Correlation between blood pressure variability and cognitive impairment in patients with acute ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the correlation between blood pressure variability and cognitive impairment in ischemic stroke. Methods The inpatients with acute ischemic stroke were enrolled. The demographic and clinical data were collected. The coefficient of variation of blood pressure within 7 days after onset was calculated. Montreal Cognitive Assessment was used to evaluate the cognitive function at three month after onset. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the relationship between the coefficient of variation of blood pressure within 7 days and the cognitive impairment at 3 months after onset. Results A total of 708 patients with acute ischemic stroke were enrolled in the study. At 3-month follow-up, 510 patients (72.0%) had cognitive impairment and 198 (28.0%) had normal cognitive function. The coefficient of variation for systolic blood pressure (8.3±1.2 vs. 8.7±1.4; t=-3.299, P=0.001) and coefficient of variation for diastolic blood pressure (7.8± 1.3 vs. 8.0± 1.5; t=-2.529, P=0.012) in the cognitive impairment group were significantly higher than those in the normal cognitive function group. With the first quintile as a reference, after adjusting other confounding factors, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that cognitive impairment at 3 months after onset was significantly associated with coefficient of variation for systolic blood pressure. The odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the 2-5 quantile groups were 2.33 (1.18-4.6), 2.31 (1.15-4.66), 2.70 (1.29-5.65), and 4.82 (1.92-12.1), respectively (all P<0.05). Conclusion Systolic blood pressure variability in the acute phase of ischemic stroke is associated with cognitive impairment. Key words: Stroke; Brain Ischemia; Hypertension; Blood Pressure; Cognition Disorders; Neuropsychological Tests; 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".