Association between ambulatory blood pressure monitoring patterns with cognitive function and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate whether nocturnal blood pressure fall, expressed by dipping patterns according to 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), is associated with abnormal cognitive function (cognitive impairment or dementia). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify original articles through December 2022. We included any study with at least ten participants reporting on all-cause dementia or cognitive impairment incidence (primary outcome) or validated cognitive tests (secondary outcome) among ABPM patterns. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) using random-effect models for primary and secondary outcome, respectively. RESULTS: In the qualitative synthesis, 28 studies examining 7595 patients were included. The pooled analysis of 18 studies showed that dippers had a 51% [OR 0.49(0.35-0.69)] lower risk of abnormal cognitive function and a 63% [OR 0.37(0.23-0.61)] lower risk of dementia alone, compared to non-dippers. Reverse dippers presented an up to sixfold higher risk [OR 6.06(3.15-11.64)] of abnormal cognitive function compared to dippers and an almost twofold higher risk [OR 1.81(1.26-2.6)] compared to non-dippers. Reverse dippers performed worse in global function neuropsychological tests compared with both dippers [SMD - 0.66(- 0.93 to - 0.39)] and non-dippers [SMD - 0.35(- 0.53 to - 0.16)]. CONCLUSION: Dysregulation of the normal circadian BP rhythm, specifically non-dipping and reverse dipping is associated with abnormal cognitive function. Further studies are required to determine potential underlying mechanisms and possible prognostic or therapeutic implications. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42022310384).
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".