The relationship between blood pressure and cognitive decline differs by race
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cognition may be influenced by health-related factors such as blood pressure (BP). However, variations in BP may differentially affect cognition across race. This study investigates BP and cognitive decline in older Black and White adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 2,284 participants (1,139 Blacks, 1,145 Whites, MAge = 73.4) from three harmonized cohorts of older adults from the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, were divided into three groups (normal, high, variable) based on systolic BP mean and standard deviation. Cognitive scores were computed from 18 neuropsychological tests and averaged to summarize five domains (episodic memory, semantic memory, working memory, processing speed, visuospatial ability) and a measure of global cognition. Linear mixed-effects models examined racial differences between BP and cognition over an average of 6.7 years. RESULTS: White adults with high BP declined faster in global cognition, perceptual speed, semantic memory, and working memory compared to Black adults with high BP, whereas White adults with variable BP had faster rates of decline in global cognition, all cognitive domains, compared to Black adults with variable BP. No differences in rate of cognitive decline were observed between Black and White older adults with normal BP. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Variations in BP differentially relate to cognitive decline in Black and White older adults, highlighting the interplay between BP and cognitive health, and the importance of race in understanding this relationship.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".