Evaluation of blood pressure and cognitive function using individual participant data meta‐analysis: The Life‐Course Blood Pressure Cognition (LCBP‐COG) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The prognostic significance of various blood pressure (BP) indices (i.e. systolic BP [SBP], diastolic BP [DBP], pulse pressure [PP] and mean arterial pressure [MAP]) on cardio‐ and cerebrovascular health vary across age groups. We examined the association between baseline BP indices in mid‐ and late‐life and cognitive function over a 9‐15 year period. Method We performed pooled analyses of data from 3 longitudinal cohort studies. The Personality and Total Health (PATH) Through Life study of adults initially aged 40‐44 and 60‐64 years in Australia, and Victoria Longitudinal Study (VLS) of adults initially aged 55‐85 years in Canada, included four waves of data collection every 4‐5 years. The Gothenburg H70 Birth cohort study of adults initially aged 70 years included three waves of data collection every 4‐5 years. The association between baseline BP and cognitive decline on the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) was categorized using the reliable change index (Duff K. 2012) and analyzed using logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, and study. Additional analyses examined relationships between baseline BP and repeated cognitive measures of memory, attention and processing speed, and executive function, using linear mixed models (PATH and H70). Only participants with complete BP and cognitive measures were included. Result Data from 2912 participants (mean baseline age 54.3 years, range 40 to 83 years, 1395 (47.9%) male) were included. Examining baseline BP and age, we observed SBP increasing with age until a small decrease at around 80 years. DBP and MAP also showed an increase with age until early late‐life (around 60 years) and were lower at older ages, PP consistently increased (Figure 1). There were no relationships between baseline BP measures and MMSE. For PATH only, higher SBP (P=0.002), DBP (P=0.0007) and MAP (P=0.0006) at age 40 years, and higher DBP (P=0.004) at 60 years, were associated with greater annual deterioration in attention and processing speed (symbol‐digit‐modalities test) over the subsequent decade (Figure 2). Conclusion Higher BP in midlife and DBP in early late‐life, were associated with a greater decline in measures of attention and processing speed. We observed no associations between BP and MMSE decline.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".