Comparison of Cognition and Aerobic Capacity in Hypertensive and Age Matched Non-Hypertensive Middle Age Males: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to compare cognition and aerobic capacity in hypertensive and non hypertensive middle aged males and find correlation between aerobic capacity and cognition in both group, to assess the relationship of cognition with age, years of hypertension, years of diabetes mellitus (DM), aerobic capacity among individual with hypertension. Design and method: An observational analytical study was conducted at community societies in Ahmedabad using purposive sampling. According to inclusion criteria 54 (27 in each group) middle age males were included in the study. Participants were divided into two groups -hypertensive group and non-hypertensive group.Each individual performed 6 minute walk test (6 MWT) to assess the aerobic capacity and Montreal cognitive assessment (MOCA) was taken to assess the cognition. Results: Statistically significant difference between both groups in 6MWT (U=208, p<0.01). No significant difference between both groups in MOCA (U=295, p>0.05).Moderate positive correlation between aerobic capacity and cognition in hypertensive group(r=0.538, p<0.005) and no correlation in non- hypertensive group(r=0.059, p>0.05) was seen. Association between cognition with age (B=0.423, p=0.007), hypertension year (B=0.598, p=0.299), DM year (B=0.322, p=0.543) and aerobic capacity (B=0.491, p=0.003) in individual with hypertension. Conclusion: The findings suggest that lower aerobic capacity and no difference in scores of cognition in hypertensive compared to non hypertensive middle aged males is seen. Correlation between aerobic capacity and cognition in hypertensive group was seen. Cognition is ascending way highly associated with hypertension year, aerobic capacity, age and DM year so. In later cognition is affected in hypertensive group. Keywords: Aerobic capacity, Cognition, Hypertension
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".