Correlation of cognitive functions of hypertensive patients on different classes of antihypertensive drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Globally, cognitive impairment has evolved as a major health and social issue. Hypertension, age, and stroke are independent risk factors for the development of cognitive impairment. Elderly individuals with hypertension are more prone to earlier cognitive decline. The risk is reduced by proper antihypertensive treatment. Various classes of antihypertensive drugs have varied protective effects on cognition, so we aimed to compare the cognitive scores of individuals taking different classes of antihypertensive drugs and correlate the blood pressure levels with their cognitive scores. Methods: Known hypertensive individuals belonging to the age group of 35 to 60 years participated in this single-center cross-sectional study conducted in a tertiary care center in southern India. Individuals with any chronic systemic illness or any history of pre-existing cognitive impairment were excluded from the study. After taking a detailed history on hypertension and drug history, the patient's cognition was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Out of a total score of 30, greater than or equal to 26 is considered normal. The hypertensive individuals were divided into three groups, namely those who were taking Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs), Calcium Channel Blockers (CCBs), and other antihypertensive drugs, and their cognitive scores were compared. Results: -value, 0.45). When grouped individually and analyzed using an independent t-test, patients who have been hypertensive for more than 5 years and who were on irregular treatment showed lower cognitive scores, which is statistically significant. Conclusion: Our study showed a strong association between hypertension and cognitive function decline, and also the ARBs' protective effect over other classes of antihypertensive drugs. The pharmacodynamics of different classes of antihypertensive drugs should be taken into account to support the cognitive health of hypertensive 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".