COGNITIVE COMPLAINT IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe the prevalence of CC in hypertensive patients and its link to an increased cardiovascular risk (CVR) profile. Design and method: Observational, descriptive, analytical and cross-sectional study. Inclusion criteria: hypertensive patients over 18 years old presenting Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Exclusion criteria: motor or sensory difficulties, psychiatric disease, illiteracy. Qualitative variables are presented as absolute and relative frequencies. Chi-square test was used for association analysis. Differences were studied through Student's t-test for independent samples. A significance level of alpha = 0.05 was set. The statistical software used was STATA v.17.0. Results: This study included 111 patients, with a 1:4 women:men rate and an average of 60 years old. Cognitive complaint was present in 45.9% of patients. Of all patients, 81% presented grade 3 arterial hypertension according to 2018 ESC guidelines, 31.5% having been diagnosed at least 20 years prior. 35.1% showed a non-dipper pattern and 45.9% nocturnal hypertension. Around 52.3% of patients had less than 8 years of studies and 33.3% had a MoCA score higher than 23. Dyslipidemia was present in 34.2% of patients, 72.1% were overweight/obese and 36% were smokers. 40.5% of patients had established heart disease (HD). The cognitive complaint patient group was associated with those with non-dipper pattern (p = 0.034), coronary artery disease and ischemic cardiopathy, with p-values of 0.019 and 0.045 respectively. This study observed a link between CC and transient ischemic cerebrovascular stroke (p = 0.027). Out of all patients suffering CC (51), 58.8% (30) presented unaltered MoCA, while association to an altered MoCA was significant (p = 0.039). Conclusions: Cognitive Complaint is related to a cardiovascular risk profile in hypertensive patients. Association with an altered MoCA in patients suffering CC highlights the risk of evolution towards Mild Cognitive Decline and dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".