Identifying Cognitive Impairment in Elderly Using Coupling Functions Between Cerebral Oxyhemoglobin and Arterial Blood Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study aimed to assess brain oxygenation status and cerebral autoregulation function in subjects with cognitive dysfunction. Methods The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was applied to divide the subjects into three groups: cognitive impairment (Group CI, 72.50 ± 10.93 y), mild cognitive impairment (Group MCI, 72.02 ± 9.90 y), and normal cognition (Group NC, 70.72 ± 7.66 y). Near-infrared spectroscopy technology and a non-invasive blood pressure device were used to simultaneously measure changes in cerebral tissue oxygenation signals in the bilateral prefrontal lobes (LPFC/RPFC) and arterial blood pressure (ABP) signals from subjects in the resting state (15 min). The coupling between ABP and cerebral oxyhemoglobin concentrations (Δ [O2Hb]) was calculated in very-low-frequency (VLF, 0.02–0.07 Hz) and low-frequency (LF, 0.07–0.2 Hz) bands based on the dynamical Bayesian inference approach. Pearson correlation analyses were used to study the relationships between MoCA scores, tissue oxygenation index, and strength of coupling function. Results In the interval VLF, Group CI (p = 0.001) and Group MCI (p = 0.013) exhibited significantly higher coupling strength from ABP to Δ [O2Hb] in the LPFC than Group NC. In the interval LF, coupling strength from ABP to Δ [O2Hb] in the LPFC was significantly higher in Group CI than in Group NC (p = 0.001). Pearson correlation results showed that MoCA scores had a significant positive correlation with the tissue oxygenation index and a significant negative correlation with the coupling strength from ABP to Δ [O2Hb]. Conclusion The significantly increased coupling strength may be evidence of impaired cerebral autoregulation function in subjects with cognitive dysfunction. The Pearson correlation results suggest that indicators of brain oxygenation status and cerebral autoregulation function can reflect cognitive function. This study provides insights into the mechanisms underlying the pathophysiology of cognitive impairment and provides objective indicators for screening cognitive impairment in the elderly population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".