Night blood pressure variability, brain atrophy, and cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although blood pressure variability (BPV) has emerged as a novel risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, few studies have examined the effects of night BPV on brain structure and function. This study investigated the association of night BPV with brain atrophy and cognitive function changes. Methods: The analysis included 1,398 participants with valid ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring at baseline and both baseline and 4-year follow-up brain magnetic resonance images who were recruited from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study. Participants underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. BPV was derived from ambulatory BP monitoring and calculated as a standard deviation (SD) of 24-h and daytime and nighttime BP. Results: During the median follow-up of 4.3 years, increased SD of night systolic or diastolic BP was an indicator of total brain volume reduction, while daytime BPV or night average BP was not associated with total brain volume changes. High SD of night systolic BP was associated with reduced gray matter (GM) volume, independent of average night BP, and use of antihypertensive drugs. It also was associated with a reduction of temporal GM volume, mostly driven by atrophy in the left entorhinal cortex and the right fusiform gyrus. In cognitive performance, high variability of night systolic BP was associated with a decrease in visual delayed recall memory and verbal fluency for the category. Conclusion: Increased night BPV, rather than night mean BP, was associated with reduced brain volume and cognitive decline. High night BPV could be an independent predictor for rapid brain aging in a middle-aged 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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".