MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DO COGNITIVE FUNCTION IN HYPERTENSION WORSE OR BETTER IN WOMEN OR MEN: ARE COMPARISONS REALISTIC?

2023· article· en· W4379780698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Viktoriia Krotova, Iryna Hubar, Tetyana Khomazyuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatory blood pressureMontreal Cognitive AssessmentBlood pressureAmbulatoryInternal medicineCognitionNeuropsychologyDiseasePhysical therapyCardiologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: More evidence confirms that cognitive disorders (CD) in hypertension (H) are early signs of cerebral blood flow deregulation and often occur before other target organs are affected. Therefore, assessment and monitoring of cognitive functions in H should be a criterion for the effectiveness of treatment and prognosis of the course of the disease. Design and method: The study results are based on the data of a comprehensive examination of 185 working patients with controlled H stage II with SCORE risk of CVD <5 %. According to the neuropsychological testing on MMSE and MoCA scales, 157 people with various severity CD were found. There were 87 (55.4 %) women and 70 (44.6 %) men among them, and the average age was 52.3 (8.2) years; the average duration of H was 10 (8 - 12 years). The comparison and control groups were adequate for the purpose. The standard methods of parametric and non-parametric statistics processed the obtained data. Results: Significant differences were noted in the parameters of the daily profile of blood pressure (VAR SBP, VAR DBP), both during day and night, in patients with H and CD of both genders due to ambulatory monitoring of BP. According to the data of the correlation analysis, a significant direct correlation of average strength was established between the day and night variability of SBP and DBP and the development of CD in patients with H, regardless of the gender of the patients: with VAR SBP during the day - r = 0.573, with VAR SBP at night - r = 0.614, with VAR DBP during the day - r = 0.426, with VAR DBP at night - r = 0.453. Conclusions: Hypertension is a significant risk factor for the development and progression of CD in both genders. No objective reason to discuss whose gender cognitive functions are worse or better. It is also essential to pay attention to the high autonomic index and variability of blood pressure ambulatory monitored day and night due to the increased risk of development and progression of CD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207