Relationship between blood pressure and cognitive impairment in elderly outpatients with cardiometabolic diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship between high or low blood pressure (BP) and cognitive function in elderly outpatients with cardiometabolic diseases. METHODS: We evaluated the association between BP and the Dementia Assessment Sheet for Community-based Integrated Care System-21 items (DASC-21), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Tool (MoCA) (N = 677). RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 79.2 ± 6.3 years (male 35.3%), and BP was 132.1 ± 18.1/73.5 ± 12.2 mmHg. Systolic BP (SBP) was linearly related to the DASC-21 score (r = -0.122, P = 0.004), but not to the MMSE score (P = 0.101) or MoCA score (P = 0.802). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that lower SBP was significantly related to the DASC-21 score, even after controlling for confounding factors (B = -0.411 per 10 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.673 to -0.149; P = 0.002). Moreover, logistic regression analysis showed that lower SBP was associated with DASC-21 ≥ 31 (odds ratio = 0.838 per 10 mmHg, P = 0.048). An MMSE score ≤23 was significantly associated with higher SBP in patients without a history of hypertension but with lower SBP in those with hypertension, those on hypertensive medication, and those with dyslipidemia. CONCLUSION: Higher BP was associated with a higher prevalence of probable dementia in those without a history of hypertension, even in late life. In those with hypertension and those taking antihypertensives with comorbidities of stroke or heart failure, lower BP was associated with probable dementia, which was largely dependent on reduced activities of daily living, as measured by the DASC-21 score. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2024; 24: 110-117.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".