Olfactory Dysfunction and High Blood Pressure Serve as Early Markers of Cognitive Decline in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Olfactory dysfunction is recognized as an early sign of dementia. Hypertension is a risk factor for dementia in midlife, but it is less clear in old age. Materials and methods: Fifty-two consecutive volunteers aged ≥ 60 years (mean age, 71.0 ± 4.8 years) were enrolled in this study. We performed the Odor Stick Identification Test for the Japan (OSIT-J) as the olfactory test. Cognitive function was evaluated with the Revised Hasegawa’s Dementia Scale (HDS-R), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Trail Making Test B (TMT-B), and Touch Panel-type Dementia Assessment Scale (TDAS). The systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were measured using plethysmography. Results: The TMT-B score was significantly correlated with the HR and OSIT-J score (HR: r = 0.306, p = 0.028; OSIT-J score: r = 0.279, p = 0.045), and HR and OSIT-J score were the significant factors of TMT-B score (HR: β = 0.295, p = 0.033; OSIT-J score: β = 0.281, p = 0.039). The TDAS score was significantly correlated with SBP and DBP (SBP: r = 0.293, p = 0.035; DBP: r = 0.302, p = 0.029). The SBP and DBP were higher in participants with TDAS scores ≥ 7 than those with TDAS scores < 7 (SBP: 155.6 ± 23.1 mmHg vs. 140.3 ± 16.1 mmHg, p = 0.017; DBP: 90.8 ± 10.3 mmHg vs. 80.9 ± 9.9 mmHg, p = 0.006). Conclusions: Decreased olfactory function, high BP, and increased HR were all associated with cognitive decline in older adults.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".