Blood pressure trajectories over 35 years and dementia risk: A retrospective study: The HUNT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High blood pressure is a well-established risk factor of dementia. However, the timing of the risk remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare trajectories of systolic blood pressure (SBP) over a 35-year follow-up period in the Health Survey in Trøndelag (HUNT) from study wave 1 to 4 in people with and without a dementia diagnosis at wave 4 (HUNT4). This is a retrospective cohort study of participants aged ≥ 70 years in HUNT4, where 9,720 participants were assessed for dementia. In the HUNT study all residents aged ≥ 20 years have been invited to four surveys: HUNT1 1984–86, HUNT2 1995–97, HUNT3 2006–08 and HUNT4 2017–19. The study sample was aged 70–102 years (mean 77.6, SD 6.0) at HUNT4, 54% were women and 15.5% had dementia, 8.8% had Alzheimer’s disease (AD), 1.6% had vascular dementia (VaD) and 5.1% had other types of dementia. Compared to those without dementia at HUNT4, those with dementia at HUNT4 had higher SBP at HUNT1 and HUNT2, but lower SBP at HUNT4. These differences at HUNT1 and 2 were especially pronounced among women. Results did not differ across birth cohorts. For dementia subtypes at HUNT4, the VaD group had a higher SBP than the AD group at HUNT2 and 3. Age trajectories in SBP showed that the dementia group experienced a steady increase in SBP until 65 years of age and a decrease from 70 to 90 years. SBP in the no- dementia group increased until 80 years before it leveled off from 80 to 90 years. The present study confirms findings of higher midlife SBP and lower late-life SBP in people with dementia. This pattern may have several explanations and it highlights the need for close monitoring of BP treatment in older adults, with frequent reappraisal of treatment needs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".