Relationship between Blood Pressures and Brain Volumes: Systematic Review and Analysis of A Canadian Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-standing hypertension has been associated with global and regional brain atrophy. Little is known regarding the timing of atrophy onset and its relationship with duration and severity of hypertension. A systematic literature review was performed to identify the relationships between hypertension and brain atrophy measured using neuroimaging, to summarize the existing knowledge and to identify areas for future investigation. Most studies identified that higher systolic blood pressure was associated with late-life brain atrophy; however, these studies did not include a concurrent assessment of brain imaging in mid-life, and participants in these studies were middle-aged in the 1980s when definitions of blood pressure (BP) were more permissive and population BP control was poorer. To investigate the relationship between BP and brain atrophy in mid-life in a contemporary cohort, brain magnetic resonance (MR) images were analyzed in 778 individuals participating in the population-based PURE-MIND study, a sub-study of the international Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiologic (PURE) Study designed to identify the risk factors for common non-communicable diseases. MR data were processed for global and regional brain volumes and cortical thickness. No significant association was seen between brain volume and hypertension, after controlling for age and gender. However, few participants had markedly elevated BP, probably due to improving population-wide control of hypertension due to lower thresholds for successful treatment than in past decades. Analysis showed that brain atrophy is not a common consequence of mid-life hypertension in today’s Canadians. It is possible that aggressive screening and control of mid-life BP might prevent atrophic changes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".