Função cognitiva e controle da pressão arterial em idosos hipertensos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment and analyze its association with blood pressure control in elderly hypertensive individuals. Cross-sectional study of 383 elderly hypertensive individuals in the state of Piauí, Brazil. The authors collected sociodemographic and clinical data, performed blood pressure measurement, and assessed cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Poisson regression with robust variance was used. Overall prevalence of cognitive impairment was 74.4%, higher in the age group 80 years and over and among older persons with less schooling. Prevalence of uncontrolled blood pressure was 61.6%, with a higher proportion in the elderly with cognitive impairment. An association was observed between cognitive impairment and uncontrolled blood pressure (aPR: 3.98; 95%CI = 2.51-6.33). The significant association between cognitive function and blood pressure control suggest that cognitive impairment is an important risk factor for uncontrolled blood pressure in older persons. The inclusion of screening measures for possible cognitive deficits may be useful for better monitoring blood pressure levels among elderly hypertensive individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".