Impact of mean blood pressure and blood pressure variability after diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and risk of dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension and increased blood pressure variability (BPV) are associated with the development of dementia. However, previous studies did not focus on the risk of dementia among participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and controlled blood pressure level. To address this limitation, the authors performed a post-hoc analysis of SPRINT MIND participants diagnosed with MCI (mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score at diagnosis 16.1±3.1). The primary outcome was subsequent diagnosis of probable dementia. The exposure was mean blood pressure and BPV following MCI diagnosis until the end of follow-up or a dementia event (mean follow-up 2.6±1.2 years). The primary outcome occurred in 76/516 (14.7%) patients. The mean blood pressure was not significantly higher in participants who developed dementia. In the lowest quartile of BPV (systolic standard deviation), the rate of dementia was 8.5% (11/129), while in the highest quartile it was 21.7% (28/129). The highest quartile of systolic BPV had an adjusted hazard ratio for dementia of 2.73 (95% CI, 1.31-5.69) and for diastolic BPV it was 2.62 (95% CI, 1.26-5.47). In SPRINT MIND participants, the authors found that increased BPV after MCI diagnosis was associated with incident probable dementia during subsequent follow-up.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".