Carotid stiffening with impaired damping is associated with cognitive impairment and reduced cerebral perfusion in elderly adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Emerging evidence indicates that arterial stiffening is associated with aging and cognitive impairment. Arterial stiffness is typically assessed by measuring pulse wave velocity (PWV) between carotid and femoral arteries. A recent study has introduced a fast oblique‐sagittal PC‐MRI (OS PC‐MRI) technique that allows for simultaneously quantifying carotid PWV (cPWV) and CCA‐ICA damping factor (cDF) within 2 minutes. This study aims to investigate the relationship between the pulsatile measures by OS PC‐MRI and cognitive impairment and cerebral perfusion in elderly adults. Method Forty elderly participants (22 female,73.3 ± 7.7 years) were enrolled in the study and underwent MRI scans at 3T including a vessel scout, retrospectively gated OS PC‐MRI (n=40), and pCASL (n=25). Neuropsychological tests were also conducted, including Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR, n=29), Mini‐Mental State Exam (MMSE, n=29), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA, n=40). As shown in Figure 1, in OS PC‐MRI, Pearson correlation was performed to test the associations of the metrics pulsatile measures with cognitive functions and cerebral perfusion. Result Elevated cPWV was strongly associated with cognitive decline after controlling for age, gender, and years of education (cPWV vs. MoCA: r = ‐0.36, p = 0.03; cPWV vs. MMSE: r = ‐0.53, p = 0.005;) (Figure 2a). The participants with CDR>0 (n=19) showed higher cPWV values compared to those with CDR=0 (p=0.0045) (Figure 2b). cDF showed a significant correlation with MoCA (p = 0.036) (Figure 2c). Increased cPWV was also associated with downstream CBF in gray matter (p=0.034) and AD‐related regions (Figure 3). Conclusion Our results showed that both elevated CCA‐ICA PWV and DF were strongly associated with cognitive impairment and downstream cerebral perfusion deficits in elderly adults. These findings suggest that arterial stiffening with reduced damping leads to excessive transmission of pulse energy to downstream vasculature resulting in microvascular dysfunction and thus 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".