NUMBER OF HOME BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT AND COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The advantage of home blood pressure (BP) measurement compared to office BP measurement can only be achieved if the patients remember to take the measurements as instructed. Cognitive function tends to decline with age, and individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) often have difficulty completing established self-management tasks. Design and method: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the number of days within a 5-and-a-half-day period that patients took their home BP as instructed and MCI assessed by the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) in an elderly clinical population. Results: We analyzed 303 ambulatory patients (mean age 77.3±8.2 years) in whom MoCA-J had been assessed, who were instructed to take home BP for 1 evening and twice a day for the next five days, and who had at least one morning home BP measurement. The average total MoCA-J score was 18.5±6.0 points. After accounting for patient characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, drinking, smoking, prevalent cardiovascular disease, morning systolic BP and diastolic BP, and the use of antihypertensive drugs, the number of days home BP was measured was independently associated with both total MoCA-J score (estimate, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–1.21; P<0.001) and the lowest quartile of MoCA-J score (13 or below) (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95%CI, 0.59–0.87; P=0.001). Home BP measurement noncompliance (< 5 days’ measurement) was also independently associated with the total MoCA-J score (estimate, -2.56; 95%CI, -4.09 to -1.03; P=0.001) and the lowest quartile of MoCA-J score (OR, 3.32; 95%CI, 1.59–6.96; P=0.001). Conclusions: Poor compliance with home BP monitoring was associated with cognitive impairment in elderly cases who had been specifically instructed to perform home BP monitoring during a designated period.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".