Effect of Beta-Blockers on Cognitive Function in Hypertensive Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is a major health problem around the world. It is commonly treated with long-term medications, such as beta-blockers. They are good in lowering blood pressure, but there are worries about how they can affect cognitive function, especially in older people. The goal of this study was to find out how beta-blockers affect cognitive performance in people with high blood pressure by comparing them to people who take other blood pressure drugs. This research used a cross-sectional, comparative design with 100 people with high blood pressure between the ages of 45 and 75. They were split evenly into two groups: those who used beta-blockers and those who did not. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used to test cognitive abilities. The results showed that patients on beta-blockers had far lower cognitive scores and a higher rate of mild to moderate cognitive impairment than the control group. Statistical analysis showed that these differences were significant (p < 0.05). The study's conclusion is that beta-blocker therapy may make cognitive performance worse in people with high blood pressure. This shows how important it is to be careful when prescribing these drugs and to keep an eye on cognitive function in these individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".