RACE DIFFERENCES IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH AND VARIABLE BLOOD PRESSURE AND DOMAIN-SPECIFIC COGNITIVE CHANGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Elevated blood pressure (BP), or hypertension, is a risk factor for several health conditions including Alzheimer’s disease. High BP in early- and mid-life is associated with cognitive decline, whereas research is mixed regarding BP and cognition in late-life. Moreover, hypertension disproportionately affects minority populations. Consequently, the effects of hypertension on cognition may differ by race. The present study investigates the relationship between BP and cognition. 4419 older adults (Black, n=1189; White, n= 3230), with 32116 follow-ups for a maximum of 10-years were included from the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center. Results reveal individuals with high BP exhibit significantly greater declines in global cognition compared to normal BP, regardless of race. When stratifying high BP by race, Blacks exhibit greater declines in working memory and perceptual speed, whereas Whites exhibit greater declines in episodic memory, semantic memory, and visuospatial ability compared to normal BP. Blacks with high BP exhibit greater decline in perceptual speed compared to variable BP, whereas no cognitive domain was worse in Whites with high BP compared to variable. When stratifying variable BP by race, Blacks exhibited greater decline in working memory compared to normal BP. Alternatively, Whites exhibited greater decline in episodic memory, semantic memory, working memory, and global cognition compared to normal and high BP counterparts. Our findings reveal racial differences in the relationship between BP and cognitive decline. Specifically, Blacks and Whites with high and variable BP experience cognitive decline in different cognitive domains, which may give insight into differences in disease trajectory and cognitive outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".