Pulse Pressure, White Matter Hyperintensities, and Cognition: Mediating Effects Across the Adult Lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate whether pulse pressure or mean arterial pressure mediates the relationship between age and white matter hyperintensity load and to examine the mediating effect of white matter hyperintensities on cognition. Methods: Demographic information, blood pressure, current medication lists, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores for231 stroke- and dementia-free adults were retrospectively obtained from the Aging Brain Cohort study. Total WMH load was determined from T2-FLAIR magnetic resonance scans using the TrUE-Net deep learning tool for white matter segmentation. In separate models, we used mediation analysis to assess whether pulse pressure or MAP mediates the relationship between age and total white matter hyperintensity load, controlling for cardiovascular confounds. We also assessed whether white matter hyperintensity load mediated the relationship between age and cognitive scores. Results: Pulse pressure, but not mean arterial pressure, significantly mediated the relationship between age and white matter hyperintensity load. White matter hyperintensity load partially mediated the relationship between age and Montreal Cognitive Assessment score. Interpretation: Our results indicate that pulse pressure, but not mean arterial pressure, is mechanistically associated with age-related accumulation of white matter hyperintensities, independent of other cardiovascular risk factors. White matter hyperintensity load was a mediator of cognitive scores across the adult lifespan. Effective management of pulse pressure may be especially important for maintenance of brain health and cognition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".