Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: One of the major risk factors for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is arterial hypertension. Hypertension induced changes in one target organ may correspond to changes in the others. That may be of great importance for the risk assessment in everyday practice. We tried to find if there is correlation between MCI and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) as manifestations of hypertensive damage of different target organs. Design and method: 931 hypertensive patients, mean age 65.90 ± 10.00 years, underwent complete physical examination, office and home blood pressure measurement (HMBP), ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (in 450 of the patients). Echocardiographic screening for concentric LVH and screening for MCI were conducted in all of them. The neuropsychological tests that were used were: Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). 263(28.25%) of the patients were reevaluated after a mean follow-up period of 12 months (6–20 months). All of the patients were on combination treatment. SPSS 19 was used for the statistical analysis. Results: 329 (35.34%) of the patients were with HMBP in the recommended range. 558 (59.93%) were with MCI when assessed with MoCA (the more sensitive of the two tests). The majority of the patients were with high and very high cardio-vascular risk. On inclusion: 532(57.70%) of the patients had LVH - 357(61.10%) were with MCI and 397(74.63%) - with suboptimal HMBP. During the follow-up 110(74.83%) were with LVH and 79(65.83%) with suboptimal HMBP control. T-test showed that the patients with LVH had significantly lower (p < 0.0001 for both MMSE and MoCA) results from the neuropsychological tests than those without LVH. Conclusions: The correspondence between LVH and MCI in patients with treated hypertension underlines the significance of the screening for various target organ damage in hypertensive patients. Detection of changes in one should provoke screening in the others. The use of short, specific and sensitive screening neuropsychological tools is of great importance in the everyday practice for the quick assessment of the risk for MCI and for the follow-up.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.858 | 0.834 |
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".