FEATURES OF COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS WITH THE PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF CHRONIC HEART FAILURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to evaluate cognitive functions in hypertensive patients with the presence/absence of chronic heart failure (CHF). Design and method: 100 male and female patients with I-III degree of arterial hypertension (AH) (ESH / ESC, 2018), who are on outpatient treatment at Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Cardiology, were examined. The stage of CHF was diagnosed according to classification (ESH / ESC, 2020), the exclusion criteria was CHF stage IIB-III. The mean age of patients was 55.8±12.2 years, AH duration was 9.4±6.7 years. All patients initially measured office systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Cognitive functions were evaluated using neuro-psychological tests: the Mini-Cog test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) was used to assess levels of anxiety and depression. The results are presented as M ± SD. Results: All patients were divided into two groups: 1 - patients with AH without CHF (n = 78) and 2 - patients with AH with CHF stage I-IIA (n = 22). The analysis of cognitive functions in AH patients revealed good indicators of cognitive functions in AH patients without CHF in comparison with AH patients with stage I-IIA CHF. In particular, the overall score on the Mini-Cog test: in 1st group it was 4.05±0.92 points, in 2nd group - 3.45±1.4 points (p<0.05), the drawing function was much better: 1.72±0.55 points versus 1.4±0.85 points (p<0.05). The total score on the MOCA scale was slightly higher in group 1 than in group 2: 24.59±2.65 versus 23.31±3.83 points, p = 0.075. At the same time, self-assessment of attention was better in 1st group than in 2nd group: 8.76±1.51 versus 7.84±2.46 points, p<0.05. Visual-constructive performance skills were also better in group 1 than in group 2: 4.13±1.05 versus 3.5±1.47 points, p<0.05. Coping with work in the 1st group of patients was somewhat better than in the 2nd group: 9.09±1.37 versus 8.31±2.39 points, p = 0.072. Conclusions: Thus, in hypertensive patients with CHF stage I-IIA is noted the severity of cognitive impairment, in contrast to patients without CHF.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".