Cognitive functioning in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome among different body positions: a prospective pilot study (POTSKog study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Approximately 96% of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (PoTS) report cognitive complaints. We investigated whether cognitive function is impaired during sitting and active standing in 30 patients with PoTS compared with 30 healthy controls (HCs) and whether it will improve with the counter manoeuvre of leg crossing. METHODS: In this prospective pilot study, patients with PoTS were compared to HCs matched for age, sex, and educational level. Baseline data included norepinephrine plasma levels, autonomic testing and baseline cognitive function in a seated position [the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Leistungsprüfsystem (LPS) subtests 1 and 2, and the Test of Attentional Performance (TAP)]. Cognitive functioning was examined in a randomized order in supine, upright and upright legs crossed position. The primary outcomes were the cognitive test scores between HCs and patients with PoTS at baseline testing, and among the different body positions. RESULTS: Patients with PoTS had impaired attention (TAP median reaction time) in the seated position and impaired executive functioning (Stroop) while standing compared with HC. Stroop was influenced by position (supine versus upright versus upright legs crossed) only in the PoTS group. Leg crossing did not result in an improvement in executive function. In patients with PoTS, there was a negative correlation of Stroop with norepinephrine plasma levels while standing. CONCLUSION: Compared with HCs, PoTS participants showed impaired cognitive attention and executive function in the upright position that did not improve in the legs crossed position. Data provide further evidence for orthostatic cognitive deterioration in patients with PoTS. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03681080).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".