MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WHICH AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE PARAMETERS ARE RELATED TO COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND DEMENTIA IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS?

2021· article· en· W3155722148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Márta Germán-Salló, Tünde Pál, Dalma Bálint Szentendrey, Cristina Maria Tătar, Márta Sallay, Kinga Nyulas, Zoltán Preg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentBlood pressureAmbulatory blood pressureDementiaPulse pressureInternal medicineCardiologyAmbulatoryDiastolePhysical therapyCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) parameters are more accurately linked to target organ damage than office or home blood pressure values. Few studies focus on the relationship between ABPM parameters and cognitive aging. We aimed to investigate the relationship between ABPM parameters and prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia among hypertensive patients. Design and method: In the present paper, we included 294 consecutive hypertensive patients admitted to a Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Clinic aged between 50–91years (mean age: 68.6 ± 8.8 years; 50.3% female; 49.7% male). After routine clinical assessment all participants had an ABPM recording (on antihypertensive medical treatment), completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test used for the detection of cognitive impairment, and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test for detection of dementia. We divided patients in two groups acording to cognitive status based on these cutoff values: 26 points for MOCA score, respectively 24 points for MMSE score – and compared ABPM parameters of the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed with the IBM SPSS v.20 program. Results: In patients with cognitive impairment (MOCA <26) we found significantly lower mean diastolic (69.9 vs. 72.4 mmHg, p = 0.023), daytime diastolic (72.0 vs. 75.1 mmHg, p = 0.012), nighttime diastolic (64.5 vs. 66.9 mmHg, p = 0.039), and higher pulse pressure values (average pulse pressure 61.5 vs. 55.5 mmHg, p = 0.002, daytime pulse pressure 61.7 vs. 56.6 mmHg, p = 0.003, nighttime pulse pressure (59.8 vs. 55.1 mmHg, p = 0.004). In patients with dementia (MMSE<24) we found significant differences between nighttime systolic values (129.7 vs. 124.5 mmHg, p = 0.04), average pulse pressure (63.5 vs. 58.9 mmHg, p = 0.038), and nighttime pulse pressure (63.5 vs. 57.4 mmHg, p = 0.003), values compared to patients with normal cognitive function. Conclusions: The presence of cognitive impairment was related to lower diastolic values, and higher pulse pressure values, while dementia was associated with higher nighttime systolic values in the studied patient population. Lowering too much diastolic blood pressure leading to higher pulse pressure and insufficient control of systolic blood pressure over night could have deleterious effect on neurocognitive abilities of treated hypertensive patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207