NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE IN PATIENTS WITH HYPERTENSIVE ENCEPHALOPATHY IN THE BACKGROUND OF RESISTANT ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the severity of CI in relation to the level of RDR to antihypertensive therapy in patients with primary arterial hypertension (AH) and the features of CI on the background of RAH. Methods: A complex of modern clinical, hemodynamic and neuropsychological methods was used to assess RDR to treatment and the severity of CI in groups of patients with high and very high RDR to treatment: the group I – with controlled arterial hypertension (CAH; n=40), the group II – with RAH (n=35). Results: When screening for CI on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale, a decrease in the average number of various domains of cognitive function in patients with CAH was found against the background of increased RDR to treatment compared with RAH. The results of the neurodynamic analysis of cognitive function in the Trail Making Test (TMT) indicate the relative sustain of selective attention and information processing speed. However, the established increase in the difference between the part B and part A performance in patients with AH demonstrated a decline in flexible thinking, cognitive control, and programming. The results of the study of regulatory functions showed that frontal dysfunction was observed more often in patients of group II, although the difference was statistically insignificant (p>0.05). Based on the results of speech studies, along with the results of memory impairment testing in the Clock Drawing (CDT) and Free and Cued Selective Reminding – Immediate Recall (FCSRT-IR) tests, a more pronounced decline of semantic memory was found in patients with RAH, indicating the possibility of memory impairment not only due to secondary neurodynamic changes but also due to the neurodegenerative processes. Conclusion: A significant decrease in semantic memory in patients with RAH suggests the possibility of the transformation of cerebral vascular lesions into neurodegenerative ones or their combination. Keywords: Neuropsychological profile, cognitive impairment, hypertensive encephalopathy, risk of developing resistance to treatment, resistant arterial 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".