Increased Beat-to-Beat Blood Pressure Variability Is Associated With Impaired Cognitive Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Emerging evidence has linked visit-to-visit, day-to-day and 24-h ABPM blood pressure variability (BPV) with cognitive impairment. Few studies have, however, considered beat-to-beat BPV. This study, therefore, evaluated the relationship between beat-to-beat BPV and cognitive function among community-dwellers aged 55 years and over. Methods: Data was obtained from the Malaysian Elders Longitudinal Research (MELoR) study, which employed random stratified sampling from three parliamentary constituencies within the Klang Valley. Beat-to-beat blood pressure (BP) was recorded using non-invasive BP monitoring (TaskforceTM, CNSystems). Low frequency (LF), high frequency (HF) and low-to-high frequency (LF:HF) ratio for BPV were derived using fast Fourier transformation. Cognition was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test, and categorized into normal aging, mild impairment and moderate-to-severe impairment. Results: Data from 1,140 individuals, mean age (SD) 68.48 (7.23) years, were included. Individuals with moderate-to-severe impairment had higher HF-BPV for systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure compared to individuals within the normal aging group [OR (95% CI) = 2.29 (1.62-3.24)] and [OR (95% CI) = 1.80 (1.32-2.45)], while HF-SBPV [OR (95% CI) = 1.41 (1.03-1.93)] but not HF-DBPV was significantly higher with mild impairment compared to normal aging after adjustments for potential confounders. Moderate-to-severe impairment was associated with significantly lower LF:HF-SBPV [OR (95% CI) = 0.29 (0.18-0.47)] and LF:HF-DBPV [OR (95% CI) = 0.49 (0.34-0.72)], while mild impairment was associated with significantly lower LF:HF-SBPV [OR (95% CI) = 0.52 (0.34-0.80)] but not LF:HF-DBPV [OR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.57-1.17)], compared to normal aging with similar adjustments. Conclusion: Higher HF-BPV, which indicates parasympathetic activation, and lower LF:HF-BPV, which addresses sympathovagal balance, were observed among individuals with moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment. Future studies should determine whether BPV could be a physiological marker or modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".