Remote Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Cognition in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVRFs) are also at increased risk of developing cognitive decline and dementia. However, it is often difficult to study the relationships between CVRFs and cognitive function because cognitive assessment typically requires time-consuming in-person neuropsychological evaluations that may not be feasible for real-world situations. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a proof-of-concept study to determine if the association between CVRFs and cognitive function could be detected using web-based, self-administered cognitive tasks and CVRF assessment. METHODS: We recruited 239 participants aged ≥50 years (mean age 62.7 years, SD 8.8; 42.7% [n=102] female, 88.7% [n=212] White) who were enrolled in the Health eHeart Study, a web-based platform focused on cardiac disease. The participants self-reported CVRFs (hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, and atrial fibrillation) using web-based health surveys between August 2016 and July 2018. After an average of 3 years of follow-up, we remotely evaluated episodic memory, working memory, and executive function via the web-based Posit Science platform, BrainHQ. Raw data were normalized and averaged into 3 domain scores. We used linear regression models to examine the association between CVRFs and cognitive function. RESULTS: CVRF prevalence was 62.8% (n=150) for high cholesterol, 45.2% (n=108) for hypertension, 10.9% (n=26) for atrial fibrillation, and 7.5% (n=18) for diabetes. In multivariable models, atrial fibrillation was associated with worse working memory (β=-.51, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.11) and worse episodic memory (β=-.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.04); hypertension was associated with worse episodic memory (β=-.27, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.11). Diabetes and high cholesterol were not associated with cognitive performance. CONCLUSIONS: Self-administered web-based tools can be used to detect both CVRFs and cognitive health. We observed that atrial fibrillation and hypertension were associated with worse cognitive function even in those in their 60s and 70s. The potential of mobile assessments to detect risk factors for cognitive aging merits further investigation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".