Systolic blood pressure at age 40 and cognitive function 25 years later: the Akershus Cardiac Examination (ACE) 1950 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hypertension in midlife is a risk factor for cognitive impairment. Still, the ideal midlife blood pressure (BP) remains unknown. We examined associations between different systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels at the age of 40-43 years and change in SBP over a 25-year period with cognitive function at age 62-65 years. METHODS: We included 2424 individuals born in 1950 who had participated both in the Age 40 Program (1990-1993) and the Akershus Cardiac Examination (ACE) 1950 Study (2012-2015). The exposure was SBP at age 40-43 years and the outcome was cognitive function at age 62-65 years, assessed with Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Delayed recall trial from the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Word List Memory Task, and Trail Making Test part B (TMT B). RESULTS: Participants were 40.1 ± 0.3 years old with mean SPB 128 ± 13 mmHg at the Age 40 Program, and 63.9 ± 0.6 years old with mean SPB 138 ± 18 at the ACE 1950 Study. Adjusted linear regressions showed no associations between SBP and subsequent cognitive function. In logistic regressions, individuals with SBP ≥140 mmHg, compared to individuals with SBP <120 mmHg (odds ratio 2.29, 95% confidence interval 1.28-4.10, P-value 0.005) had increased risk of an abnormal TMT B-score. Change in SBP during the 25-year follow-up was not associated with cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: SBP ≥140 mmHg at age 40-43 was associated with reduced capacity on TMT B, a domain specific cognitive test sensitive to vascular impairment. No other associations were found between SBP, or change in SBP, and cognitive function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".