Clinical trials in vascular cognitive impairment following SPRINT-MIND: An international perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large interventional trial, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial sub-study termed Memory and Cognition in Decreased Hypertension (SPRINT-MIND), found reduced risk of cognitive impairment in older adults with intensive, relative to standard, blood-pressure-lowering targets (systolic BP < 120 vs. <140 mm Hg). In this perspective, we discuss key questions and make recommendations for clinical practice and for clinical trials, following SPRINT-MIND. Future trials should embody cognitive endpoints appropriate to the participant group, ideally with adaptive designs that ensure robust answers for cognitive and cardiovascular endpoints. Reliable data from diverse populations, including the oldest-old (age > 80 years), will maximize external validity and global implementation of trial findings. New biomarkers will improve phenotyping to stratify patients to optimal treatments. Currently no antihypertensive drug class stands out for dementia risk reduction. Multi-domain interventions, incorporating lifestyle change (exercise, diet) alongside medications, may maximize global impact. Given the low cost and wide availability of antihypertensive drugs, intensive BP reduction may be a cost-effective means to reduce dementia risk in diverse, aging populations worldwide.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".