Cumulative blood pressure load and cognitive decline in older adults: An observational analysis of two large cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cumulative blood pressure metrics may provide greater precision for measuring temporal risk exposure, especially in later life where data are mixed regarding associations of high blood pressure (BP) on cognitive function. We examined the relationship between greater cumulative exposure to high BP in later life and several domains of cognitive function. Methods: Individual cognitive assessment scores and BP measurements in older adults (age ≥70 years) at baseline and over approximately 8 years of follow-up were available in the population-based Canadian Victoria Longitudinal Study (VLS) and Swedish Gothenburg H70 Birth Cohort Studies (H70). Linear mixed models were used to quantify associations between cumulative systolic and diastolic BP and change in cognitive scores. Results: Each additional 100mmHg increase in cumulative BP was related to greater decline in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) List A, trials 1-5 total score over follow-up: -0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.32, -0.13) for systolic BP and -0.41 (95%CI -0.58, -0.23) for diastolic BP. Similarly increases cumulative systolic and diastolic BP were related to greater declines Digit Symbol Substitution Task (DSS) scores: -0.59 (95%CI -0.80, -0.38) and -1.04 (95% CI -1.40, -0.67), respectively. There were no associations of cumulative BP and temporal changes in general cognition, other measures of verbal episodic memory, or semantic fluency. Conclusions: Higher cumulative BP is associated with greater declines in RAVLT measured immediate memory span and complex attention, information processing speed and visuospatial scanning in older adults, but the scale of change is small. Additional research is required to further define these relationships and identify opportunities for prevention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".