Neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms in people with hypertension: An examination with the NINDS-CSN consensus protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension has been associated with risk of cognitive impairments. The American Heart Association recommended the use of the harmonized neuropsychological protocol suggested by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke and the Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) for studying related cognitive impairments. Initially designed for vascular cognitive impairment, empirical data of results from NINDS-CSN protocol has not been well-established in hypertension. The present study recruited 58 adults diagnosed with hypertension and 44 normotensive controls. Tests from the NINDS-CSN protocol were given in three lengths, including neuropsychological tests and neuropsychiatric inventories. The results showed higher proportions of hypertensive adults with impairments on tests of memory and executive functions and that they performed worse as a group on several tests from the 30-minute protocol, but not on the other additional tests in the full-length version, nor on cognitive screening test in the 5-minute protocol such as the Mini-Mental State Examination or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. There was no significant group difference on neuropsychiatric symptoms. These findings suggested that the 30-minute version of the NINDS-CSN protocol with the two supplemental tests was able to reveal selective cognitive deficits in hypertensive adults and provide a practical solution for related studies, balancing between the requirement of sensitivity, domain variety, and brevity.
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 | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".