Measurement of resistance-area product by transcranial Doppler: a reliable marker of preclinical cognitive decline in hypertensive patients on drug treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arterial hypertrophy and remodeling are adaptive responses present in SAH that can result in silent ischemia and neurodegeneration, compromising brain connections and cognitive abilities. However, antihypertensives can minimize these histological changes. We try to assess whether cerebrovascular hemodynamic parameters, representative of these histological adaptations, can identify cognitive impairment in a preclinical stage in chronic hypertensive on drug treatment. Three groups of patients without cognitive complaints were prospectively compared: hypertensive under treatment with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 140 and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 90 mmHg (n=54), hypertensive under treatment with SBP > 140 or DBP >90 mmHg (n=31) and volunteers normotensive (n=30). Simultaneous measurements of systemic BP and middle cerebral artery (MCA) blood flow velocity were obtained from digital plethysmography and Transcranial Doppler. For the cognitive assessment, the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and a broad neuropsychological battery were applied. In relation to normotensive, uncontrolled hypertensive were older (51 ± 12 years), had greater resistance-area product (RAP 1.7 [±0.7] vs. 1.2 [±0.2], p< 0.001), but did not differ in relation to the pulsatility indices (p=0.361). There was a negative correlation between RAP, episodic memory (r = -0.277, p=0.004) and cognitive processing speed (r = -0.319, p=0.001). In chronic hypertensive using antihypertensive, the RAP is a reliable marker of preclinical cognitive decline in specific domains, as it is less influenced by the direct action of these drugs, and should be further explored as an alternative tool for screening for cognitive impairment in these 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".