MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406308057 · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101560

Association of Longitudinal Change in Ambulatory Blood Pressure With Cognitive Decline in Older Adults

2025· article· en· W4406308057 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Satoshi Hoshide, Masafumi Nishizawa, Hiroshi Kanegae, Kazuomi Kario

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceOmron Healthcare
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatory blood pressureMontreal Cognitive AssessmentQuartileBlood pressureCognitive declineAmbulatoryInternal medicineLongitudinal studyDiastoleCardiologyLogistic regressionCognitionDemographyCognitive impairmentConfidence intervalDementiaPsychiatryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There has been no study about the association of longitudinal change in ambulatory blood pressure (BP) variability and level with cognitive decline. Objectives: The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether BP changes via ambulatory BP monitoring predict cognitive decline progression. Methods: Twice-annual ambulatory BP readings were examined during 5 years and their relationship with changes in the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) scores. BP variability was assessed using SD, coefficient of variation, and average real variability (ARV). Cognitive decline, defined as a change in the MoCA-J score, was assessed, with the threshold set at the quartile showing the greatest decrease, which we categorized as cognitive dysfunction (-4 points or less). Results: = 0.007), consistent across coefficient of variation and ARV. No association was found between changes in BP level and MoCA-J score decline. Conclusions: In older adults with controlled BP, increased BP variability was linked to cognitive decline, warranting further study as a prevention target.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC AdvancesSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207