THE SEVERITY OF COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT IN PATIENTS WITH ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION AND ATRIAL FIBRILLATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the severity of cognitive impairment in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). ± Design and method: The study included 266 patients of both sexes with grades I–III arterial hypertension (AH) according to the ESH classification (2023). The average age of the patients was 55.8±11.0 years, and the average duration of hypertension was 9.6±7.1 years. To evaluate cognitive function, patients were divided into two groups: Group I: Patients with hypertension and AF (n=155) Group II: Patients with hypertension without AF (n=111). Cognitive functions were assessed using neuropsychological tests: Mini-Cog test (clock drawing and word recall), Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), A self-assessment questionnaire covering memory, attention, thinking, ability to handle daily tasks, and decision-making. Anxiety and depression levels were evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Results are presented as M±SD. Results: The cognitive function analysis showed lower test scores in Group I compared to Group II. For instance, the total Mini-Cog test score in Group I was 3.45±1.68, while in Group II it was 3.99±1.04 (p>0.05). The MoCA scale results also indicated better cognitive performance in Group II, with a total score of 24.19±2.95, compared to 19.2±4.85 in Group I (p<0.05). This suggests more severe cognitive impairment in patients with hypertension and AF. Specific cognitive functions such as abstraction, delayed recall, orientation, and attention were also superior in Group II. The HADS results revealed higher levels of anxiety and depression in Group I, with scores of 7.81±4.51 and 6.44±3.94, respectively (p<0.05). Conclusions: The severity of cognitive impairment and anxiety-depressive disorders is more pronounced in patients with both AF and AH compared to hypertensive patients without AF.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".