Association of Type D personality and mild cognitive impairment in patients with hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between Type D personality and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in patients with hypertension. Methods A total of 324 subjects with hypertension were included in the study. All of them completed questionnaires on demographic characteristics, Type D personality Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The Type D personality effect was analyzed as both dichotomous and continuous methods. Results The incidence of MCI was 56.5% in hypertensive individuals. Type D personality presenting as a dichotomous construct was an independent risk factor of MCI (odds ratio [OR] = 2.814, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.577–5.021, p < 0.001), after adjusting for ages, sex and some clinical factors. Meanwhile, main effect of negative affectivity component was independently related to the prevalence of MCI (OR = 1.087, 95%CI = 1.014–1.165, p = 0.019). However, associations between the main effect of social inhibition component (OR = 1.011, 95%CI = 0.924–1.107, p = 0.811) as well as the interaction of negative affectivity and social inhibition (OR = 1.013, 95%CI = 0.996–1.030, p = 0.127) with MCI were not found. Conclusion The findings suggest that Type D personality is strongly associated with MCI in patients with hypertension. The negative affectivity component of the Type D appears to drive the correlations between Type D and MCI. These findings provide new ideas for studying the mechanisms underlying the relationship between personality and cognitive decline in hypertensive individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".