Early-but Not Late-Onset Hypertension Is Related to Midlife Cognitive Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is related to increased risk of cognitive decline in a highly age-dependent manner. However, conflicting evidence exists on the relation between age of hypertension onset and cognition. Our goal was to investigate the association between early- versus late-onset hypertension and midlife cognitive performance in 2946 CARDIA study (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults) participants (mean age 55±4, 57% women). The participants underwent 9 repeat examinations, including blood pressure measurements, between 1985 to 1986 and 2015 to 2016. The participants underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging and completed Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Stroop interference test, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to evaluate cognitive function at the year 30 exam. We assessed the relation between age of hypertension onset and cognitive function using linear regression models adjusted for cognitive decline risk factors, including systolic blood pressure. We observed that individuals with early-onset hypertension (onset at <35 years) had 0.24±0.09, 0.22±0.10, 0.27±0.09, and 0.19±0.07 lower standardized Z-scores in Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Stroop test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and a composite cognitive score than participants without hypertension ( P <0.05 for all). In contrast, hypertension onset at ≥35 years was not associated with cognitive function ( P >0.05 for all). In a subgroup of 559 participants, neither early- nor late-onset hypertension was related to macrostructural brain alterations ( P >0.05 for all). Our results indicate that early-onset hypertension is a potent risk factor for midlife cognitive impairment. Thus, age of hypertension onset assessment in clinical practice could improve risk stratification of cognitive decline in patients with hypertension.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".