MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HYPERCOG COGNITIVE SCREENING IN OLDER ADULTS WITH HYPERTENSION: A PILOT STUDY

2021· article· en· W3154677136 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria D’Andria, Giulia Rivasi, Giada Turrin, Virginia Tortù, Daniele Falzone, Evelina Giuliani, Antonella Giordano, Andrea Ungar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineDementiaGeriatric Depression ScaleCognitionReceiver operating characteristicCognitive impairmentNeuropsychologyMini–Mental State ExaminationPhysical therapyCognitive declineGerontologyInternal medicinePsychiatryDiseaseDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Hypertension is a risk factor for cognitive impairment. According to the 2018 ESH/ESC guidelines for hypertension management, cognitive screening tests should be included in the assessment of older hypertensive adults. Numerous screening tests are available, but their diagnostic accuracy in hypertensive people has been scarcely investigated. The present study aimed at analyzing and comparing the diagnostic accuracy of the MiniCog, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Clock Drawing Test (CDT) in older hypertensive patients. Design and method: The study was carried out in the Referral Centre for Hypertension in Elderly of Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy, between February 2017 and May 2019. Subjects aged 65 or older without a prior diagnosis of cognitive impairment were enrolled. Participants underwent a cognitive screening using the MMSE, the MoCa, the Mini-Cog and the CDT, followed by a complete neuropsychological evaluation. Depressive symptoms and functional status were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale and the Basic and Instrumental Activities of Daily Life, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed for each tests and their combinations, using the ROC curves for the MMSE and the MoCA. Results: Among 94 participants undergoing a complete cognitive evaluation, 35 (37.2%) had mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Seven patients (7.44%) had a multi-domain cognitive impairment. According to the ROC curves, the best detection of cognitive impairment could be achieved with a cut-off score of 24 for the MoCA (AUC 0.746) and 27.5 for the MMSE (AUC 0.689). The MoCA had the highest diagnostic accuracy, providing a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 59%. A cognitive screening including both the Mini-Cog and the MMSE provided a higher sensitivity (74%) and specificity (51%) than the MMSE alone (sensitivity and specificity of 69% and 52%, respectively). Conclusions: In conclusion, we observed a high prevalence of cognitive impairment (37.2%) among older hypertensive outpatients with no prior diagnosis of dementia. The MoCA with a cut-off of 24 seems to have a good diagnostic accuracy in this population and could be included in the assessment of hypertension-related organ damage, to screen for cognitive impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207