Relationship Between Arterial Stiffness Index, Pulse Pressure, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Markers of White Matter Integrity: A UK Biobank Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Alzheimer's disease and dementia in general constitute one of the major public health problems of the 21st century. Research in arterial stiffness and pulse pressure (PP) play an important role in the quest to reduce the risk of developing dementia through controlling modifiable risk factors. Objective: The aim of the study is to investigate the association between peripheral PP, arterial stiffness index (ASI) and brain integrity, and to discover if ASI is a better predictor of white matter integrity than peripheral PP. Materials and Methods: 17,984 participants 63.09 ± 7.31 from the UK Biobank were used for this study. ASI was estimated using infrared light (photoplethysmography) and peripheral PP was calculated by subtracting the diastolic from the systolic brachial blood pressure value. Measure of fractional anisotropy (FA) was obtained from diffusion imaging to estimate white matter microstructural integrity. White matter hyperintensities were segmented from the combined T1 and T2-weighted FLAIR images as a measure of irreversible white matter damage. Results: An important finding is that peripheral PP better predicts white matter integrity when compared to ASI. This finding is consistent until 75 years old. Interestingly, no significant relationship is found between either peripheral PP or ASI and white matter integrity after 75 years old. Conclusion: These results suggest that ASI from plethysmography should not be used to estimate cerebrovascular integrity in older adults and further question the relationship between arterial stiffness, blood pressure, and white matter damage after the age of 75 years old.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".