NEUROPROTECTIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF 12-MONTH COMBINED ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS WITH COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to determine the comparative effectiveness of combination antihypertensive therapy including nitrendipine in patients with essensial hypertension with cognitive impairment. Design and method: The study included 58 male and female patients with I–III AH degree (ESC/ESH, 2018). The average age of the patients was 54.6±10.8 years, the average duration of AH was 8.8±5.52 years. The patients were divided into 2 groups: 1 group – hypertensive patients with cognitive impairment, n=40, 2 group – hypertensive patients without cognitive impairment, n=18. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA) and Mini-Cog test. Results: Analysis of neuroprotective effectiveness of combined AHT in patients with EH, taking into account the presence/absence of cognitive impairment, revealed that according to the MOCA scale, cognitive functions improved only in 1 st group of patients, initially 22.35± 2.46 points in dynamics - 24.47 ± 2.44 points (p<0.001), in comparison with the group of patients without cognitive impairment: initially 27.3±1.19 points versus 26.3±1.84 points, respectively (p>0.05). And also using the Mini-Cog test, it was determined that the scores significantly increased only in 1 st group of patients: initially amounting to 3.75± 1.12 points, over time - 4.35 ± 0.86 (p < 0.02), then as in group 2, there was no significant increase in score. Conclusions: Positive dynamics of cognitive functions against the background of 12 months of AHT with the inclusion of nitrendipine was noted in the subgroup of patients with cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".