MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390906723 · doi:10.1101/2024.01.15.24301335

Beyond Hypertension: Examining Variable Blood Pressure’s Role in Cognition and Brain Structure

2024· preprint· en· W4390906723 on OpenAlexafffund
Cassandra Morrison, Michael Oliver, Farooq Kamal, Mahsa Dadar

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteCarleton University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsNeuropathologyDementiaHyperintensityCognitive declineWhite matterCognitionNeuroimagingAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeCohortBlood pressureBrain Structure and FunctionPsychologyBrain sizeCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineGerontologyDiseaseMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Hypertension is a known risk factor for cognitive decline and structural brain changes in aging and dementia. In addition to high blood pressure (BP), individuals may also experience variable BP, meaning that their BP fluctuates between normal and high. It is currently unclear what the effects of variable BP are on cognition and brain structure. Objective: To investigate the influence of BP on cognition and brain structure in older adults. Design Setting and Participants: This longitudinal cohort study included data from the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center Research Resource Sharing Hub (RUSH) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Participants from the two studies were included if they had BP measurements and either cognitive scores or MRI scans from at least one visit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Longitudinal gray matter, white matter, white matter hyperintensity volumes, postmortem neuropathology information, as well as cognitive test scores. Results: A total of 4606 participants (3429 females, mean age = 76.8) with 32776 follow-ups (mean = 7 years) from RUSH and 2114 participants (1132 females, mean age = 73.3) with 9827 follow-ups (mean = 3 years) from ADNI were included in this study. Participants were divided into one of three groups: 1) normal BP, high BP, or variable BP. Older adults with variable BP exhibited the highest rate of cognitive decline followed by high BP and then normal BP. Increased GM volume loss and WMH burden was also observed in variable BP compared to high and normal BP. With respect to post-mortem neuropathology, both variable and high BP had increased severities compared to normal BP. Importantly, results were consistent across the RUSH and ADNI participants, supporting the generalizability of the findings. Conclusion and Relevance: Limited research has examined the long-term impact of variable BP on cognition and brain structure. These findings show the importance that both high and variable BP have on cognitive decline and structural brain changes. Structural damages caused by variable BP may reduce resilience to future dementia-related pathology and increased risk of dementia. Improved treatment and management of variable BP may help reduce cognitive decline in the older adult population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→