P.016 Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy are associated with future development of vascular dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to evaluate the association between hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP) and future risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. Methods: Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to April 27th, 2020. Exposure of interest included the different types of HDP. Outcomes of interest included dementia incidence, dementia subtype, and cognitive testing. Results: On qualitative review, 4/9 studies showed impaired memory, visual motor processing speed, executive function, and verbal testing in previously preeclamptic women. 2/4 studies showed impaired visual motor processing and subjective cognitive complaints in previously eclamptic women. Six cohort studies involving >2.6 million women were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals were generally adjusted for age at delivery ethnicity, and vascular risk factors. Women with a history of gestational hypertension were more likely to develop vascular dementia (aHR 2.02 [1.45-2.83],I2:0%), but not Alzheimer disease (1.24 [0.93-1.66],single-study). Women with a history of preeclampsia were also more likely to develop vascular dementia (2.17 [1.20-3.91],I2:61.1%), but not Alzheimer dementia (1.19 [0.83-1.69],I2:69.9%). Conclusions: Whereas studies of neuropsychological testing in previously preeclamptic and eclamptic women have been heterogeneous, a history of HDP is associated with developing vascular dementia in later life.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".