The effect of insomnia on mild cognitive impairment in patients with vascular risks: results of a three-year longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To assess the dynamics of sleep parameters based on the analysis of three items of HDRS-17, designed to measure the severity of insomnia, during 36 months of follow-up and their relationship with indicators of the cognitive phenotype in patients with vascular risk factors. Material and methods. The longitudinal study included 51 patients (mean age 57.7±6.2 years, 19 (37.3%) men)) who met the inclusion criteria. All participants underwent a general clinical examination with assessment of vascular risks and neuropsychological testing using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and HDRS-17 at baseline and after 36 months. During the study, patients received stable basic therapy to prevent modifiable vascular risk factors. Sleeping pills were taken sporadically when there were complaints of problems falling asleep. Results. During the 36-month study, as vascular cognitive impairment progressed from 23.7±2.6 to 22.1±2.4 points on the MoCA scale (p=0.01), mainly due to decreased attention (p=0.01), executive functions (EF) (p=0.01), memory (p=0.02), speech (p=0.02), an increase in sleep disturbances was observed (item 4: 0.8±0.02 to 1.9±0.1 points, p=0.01; point 5: 0.6±0.02 to 1.7±0.1 points, p=0.01) and depression (7.5±0.5 to 13.7±3.0 points, p=0.01) in patients with vascular risks. A strong inverse correlation was revealed between the values of items 4, 5, 6 on the HDRS-17 and the average MoCA-total scores (r=–0.85; r=–0.87; r=–0.8 (p<0.05)), memory index (r=–0.8; r=–0.75; r=–0.81 (p<0.05)), attention index (r=–0.88; r=–0.86; r=–0.83 (p<0.05)), index of executive functions (r=–0.87; r=–0.85; r=–0.8 (p<0.05)), respectively. Conclusion. The progression of cognitive impairment is associated with worsening insomnia disorders and depression in patients with vascular risks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".