Correlation between home systolic blood pressure variability and cognitive impairment in maintenance hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To investigate the correlation between home blood pressure variability and cognitive function in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients. METHODS: Patients who received MHD were included. Their home blood pressure on nondialysis days within 1 week was collected. All patients were assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale, according to which the patients were divided into cognitive impairment (CI) group and non-CI group, and the differences between two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were included in the study, of which 168 had CI (75%). Compared with non-CI group, patients in CI group had larger variability of systolic blood pressure (SBPV) (8.4 [6.7, 10.6]% vs. 6.9 [4.9, 8.8]%, P < 0.001). The smooth fitting curve (OR = 1.2, 95% CI [1.1-1.4], P < 0.001) and trend test (P for trend = 0.004) showed that the risk of CI raised with the increase of SBPV. The patients were further divided into tertiles according to the SBPV. We also found a gradual increase in the proportion of incident CI in the three tertiles. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that age, shorter years of education, less frequency of hemodialysis, and greater SBPV were the dependent risk of CI. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, greater SBPV indicates higher risk of cognitive impairment in MHD 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".