Assessment of Cognition in Hypertensives and Normotensives: A Comparative P300 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is an established risk factor for dementia, and the prevalence of hypertension and dementia is rising. Current tests to diagnose cognitive dysfunction at an early stage lack sensitivity and specificity. Recently event-related potentials (ERPs) have gained much attention in diagnosing cognitive dysfunction and are independent of the education status of the subject. This study was done to find any cognitive deficits in the hypertensive population with electrophysiological evidence, which might open the doors for the need to screen the population at an earlier stage so that the population can be prevented from dementia. METHODS: Some 31 middle-aged (18-65 years) hypertensives were compared with 31 age, sex, education, and handedness matched normotensives about cognition by neuropsychometric test battery including Hindi Mini-mental Status Examination (HMSE), Hindi Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), choice reaction time (CRT), and auditory event-related potentials. RESULTS: Hypertensives and normotensives differed significantly concerning P300 potentials' latency (Fz and Cz P300 latencies: p-value: 0.001), and this change was correlated well with the duration of diastolic blood pressure (BP) (r-value: 0.670). The remaining tests, HMSE, Hindi MoCA, and CRT, were dependent on the education status of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of hypertension on cognitive impairment is evident and can be proved early in its pre-clinical stage using ERPs. Early identification can help in specifying high-risk individuals. ERPs have great potential in screening and diagnosing and can also help in assessing cognition as a reliable tool to show the effect of treatments/interventions on cognitive defects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".