Measurement of resistance-area product by transcranial Doppler: An alternative tool for cognitive screening in hypertensive on drug treatment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arterial hypertrophy and remodeling are adaptive responses present in systemic arterial hypertension that can result in silent ischemia and neurodegeneration, compromising brain connections and cognitive performance (CP). However, CP is affected differently over time, so traditional screening methods may become less sensitive in assessing certain cognitive domains. The study aimed to evaluate whether cerebrovascular hemodynamic parameters can serve as a tool for cognitive screening in hypertensive without clinically manifest cognitive decline. Participants were allocated into groups: non-hypertensive (n=30) [group 1], hypertensive with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 140 and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 90 mmHg (n=54) [group 2] and hypertensive with SBP ≥ 140 or DBP ≥ 90 (n=31) [group 3]. Measurements of blood pressure and middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity were obtained from digital plethysmography and transcranial Doppler. For the cognitive assessment, the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and a broad neuropsychological battery were applied. Patients in groups 2 and 3 show no significant differences in most of the clinical-epidemiological variables or pulsatility index (p=0.361), however compared to group 1 and 2, patients in group 3 had greater resistance-area product [RAP] (1.7 [±0.7] vs. 1.2 [±0.2], p<0.001). There was a negative correlation between RAP, episodic memory (r = -0.277, p=0.004) and cognitive processing speed (r = -0.319, p=0.001). RAP reflects the real cerebrovascular resistance, regardless of the direct action of antihypertensive on the microcirculation, and seems to be a potential alternative tool for cognitive screening in hypertensive.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".