Blood pressure postural changes variability is associated with cognitive decline: the S.AGES cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Over the past decade, higher blood pressure (BP) variability has been associated with cognitive decline (CD). To date, only one study investigated the specific impact of visit‐to‐visit BP postural changes variability on dementia but its association with cognition is still unknown. We aimed to investigate the association between BP postural changes variability and cognitive function in noninstitutionalized subjects aged ≥ 65 years. Method The S.AGES (Sujets Âgés) cohort followed for three years noninstitutionalized subjects aged ≥ 65 years without major neurocognitive impairment at inclusion. At each visit, an orthostatic systolic BP (SBP) ratio was calculated using the formula (sitting SBP/standing SBP) x 100. An orthostatic diastolic BP ratio was computed using the same method. Subjects with a SBP ratio > 100% had sitting SBP > standing SBP. We assessed the visit‐to‐visit BP postural changes variability according to several indicators: standard deviation, coefficient of variation (CV), variation independent of mean, residual standard deviation, average real variability, and successive variation. Cognitive performances were evaluated using the Mini‐Mental State Examination. Linear mixed models were used for the analyses. Result We included 2,974 subjects (mean age 78 years, women 56%). After adjustment for age, sex, education, baseline body mass index, smoking, alcohol intake, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, transient ischemic attack or stroke, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, seated SBP/DBP and antihypertensive treatment, greater visit‐to‐visit systolic BP postural changes variability was significantly associated with CD over time (adjusted β [95% CI] = ‐0.17 [‐0.29; ‐0.06], p = 0.004 for CV). Similar results were found for visit‐to‐visit diastolic BP postural changes variability (adjusted β [95% CI] = ‐0.14 [‐0.25; ‐0.03], p = 0.017 for CV). Conclusion Greater visit‐to‐visit BP postural changes variability was associated with CD. Further studies are needed to assess whether controlling orthostatic BP instability over time could be a promising interventional target to preserve cognition among older adults.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".