Beyond Hypertension: Examining Variable Blood Pressure’s Role in Cognition and Brain Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hypertension or high blood pressure (BP) is one of the 12 modifiable risk factors that contribute to 40% of dementia cases that could be delayed or prevented. Although hypertension is associated with cognitive decline and structural brain changes, less is known about the long-term association between variable BP and cognitive/brain changes. This study examined the relationship between variable BP and longitudinal cognitive, white matter hyperintensity (WMH), gray matter (GM), and white matter (WM) volume change over time and postmortem neuropathology. METHODS: A total of 4,606 participants (32,776 follow-ups) from RADC Research Resource Sharing Hub (RUSH) and 2,114 participants (9,827 follow-ups) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were included. Participants were divided into 1 of 3 groups: normal, high, or variable BP. Linear-mixed models investigated the relationship between BP and cognition, brain structure, and neuropathology. RESULTS: Older adults with variable BP exhibited the highest rate of cognitive decline followed by high and then normal BP. Increased GM volume loss and WMH burden were also observed in variable compared to high and normal BP. In postmortem neuropathology, both variable and high BP had increased rates compared to normal BP. Results were consistent across the RUSH and ADNI participants, supporting the generalizability of the findings. DISCUSSION: Damages potentially associated with variable BP may reduce resilience to future dementia-related pathology and increased the risk of dementia more than that caused by high BP. 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".