The Relationship Between Hypertension and Cognition in Older Adults Living in a Retirement Community: By Maheen Islam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension affects over 70 million American adults, with only half of these adults managing to keep it under control. Risk factors for hypertension include an unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity, and advanced age. As individuals age, their risk of hypertension dramatically increases. Hypertension impacts many of the body’s organs, including the brain. Furthermore, it has been suggested that both age and hypertension are linked to declines in cognition. Therefore, deciphering the mechanisms through which hypertension may cause cognitive decline in older adults is of great importance. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between hypertension and cognitive impairment in older adults. To examine this, 78 participants were recruited from retirement communities located in Tallahassee, FL. We assessed participants for resting blood pressure and global cognition, which assesses several cognitive domains such as memory, recall, and attention, as measured via the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The sample contained 48 non-hypertensive and 30 hypertensive participants. Results showed a positive relationship between both systolic and diastolic blood pressure and total MoCA score. However, when controlling for age and sex, this relationship only existed between diastolic blood pressure and total MoCA score. This finding contradicts previous findings of an association between hypertension and cognitive decline. No relationship was found between diastolic blood pressure and total MoCA score. Future research must examine whether a limited degree of high blood pressure can be optimal for protecting against 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".