THE EFFECT OF URIC ACID ON COGNITIVE FUNCTION IN PATIENTS WITH ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the effect of uric acid on cognitive functions in patients with essential hypertension Design and method: The study included 111 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 depending on the level of uric acid: group 1 - with elevated uric acid levels (6 mg/dl and more) n=48, 2nd group – with normal uric acid levels, n=59. The level of uric acid in blood serum was measured using the enzymatic method on a Daytona TM biochemical analyzer from Rendox (UK). Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA). Results: Analysis of cognitive functions in hypertensive patients taking into account the level of uric acid revealed that according to the MOCA scale, cognitive impairment was more pronounced in 1st group of patients compared to the group of patients whose uric acid level was normal: 23.4±3,02 points versus 24.7±2,79 points, respectively (p=0.023). The delayed reproduction function was significantly worse in first group of patients compared to the group with normal uric acid levels: 2.6±1.17 points versus 3.08±1.23 points, respectively (p=0.04). It should be noted that there is a tendency towards anxiety disorders also in the group with elevated uric acid levels than in the group with normal uric acid levels: 7.06±3.73 points versus 5.57±3.98 points, respectively (p=0.05). Conclusions: Analysis of the distribution of patients with and without cognitive impairment in the groups of patients with elevated and normal levels of uric acid showed that the number of patients with cognitive impairment significantly prevailed by almost 1.8 times in the group with uric acid levels exceeding normative values, amounting to 64. 6% versus 35.4% of patients, respectively (χ2= 8.16, p=0.004).
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".