Hypotensive Episodes on 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Cognitive Function: Insights From the SPRINT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypotensive episodes detected by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring capture daily cumulative hypotensive stress and could be clinically relevant to cognitive impairment, but this relationship remains unclear. METHODS: We included participants from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (receiving intensive or standard BP treatment) who had 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring measured near the 27-month visit and subsequent biannual cognitive assessments. We evaluated the associations of hypotensive episodes (defined as systolic BP drops of ≥20 mm Hg between 2 consecutive measurements that reached <100 mm Hg) and hypotensive duration (cumulative time of systolic BP <100 mm Hg) with subsequent cognitive function using adjusted linear mixed models. We further assessed 24-hour average BP and variability. RESULTS: score changes, -0.128 [95% CI, -0.231 to -0.026]). A consistent dose-response association was also observed for longer hypotensive duration with worse Montreal Cognitive Assessment and digit symbol coding scores. The association with digit symbol coding scores remained significant after further adjusting for 24-hour average BP and variability and was not observed for hypotension defined by clinic, orthostatic, or 24-hour average BP. Intensive BP treatment increased 24-hour hypotensive episodes and modified its association with the decline in digit symbol coding score. CONCLUSION: Twenty-four-hour hypotensive episodes were associated with worse cognitive function, especially in processing speed, and could be a novel marker for optimal BP control and dementia 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".