Associations Between Relative Morning Blood Pressure, Cerebral Blood Flow, and Memory in Older Adults Treated and Controlled for Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension, elevated morning blood pressure (BP) surges, and circadian BP variability constitute risk factors for cerebrovascular events. Nevertheless, while evidence indicates that hypertension is associated with cognitive dysfunctions, the link between BP variability and cognitive performance during aging is not clear. The purpose of this study is to determine the interaction between relative morning BP, cerebral blood flow (CBF) levels, and cognitive performance in hypertensive older adults with controlled BP under antihypertensive treatment. Eighty-four participants aged between 60 and 75 years old were separated into normotensive (n=51) and hypertensive (n=33) groups and underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. They were also examined for CBF in the gray matter (CBF-GM) by magnetic resonance imaging and 5 cognitive domains: global cognition, working memory, episodic memory, processing speed, and executive functions. There was no difference in cognitive performance and CBF between normotensive and controlled hypertensive participants. Through a sensitivity analysis, we identified that, among relative morning BP variables, the best fit for CBF values in this cohort was the morning-evening difference in BP. The relative morning BP was negatively associated with CBF-GM in these hypertensive older adults only. In turn, CBF-GM levels were negatively associated with working and episodic memory scores in hypertensive older adults. This is the first extended study demonstrating an association between high relative morning BP and lower levels of CBF-GM, including the further impact of CBF-GM levels on the cognitive performance of specific domains in a community-based cohort of older adults 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".