Back

Modeling Orthostatic Hypotension in a-Synucleinopathies by Dynamic BP/CBFv

Xing, Y.; Gu, Y.; Chen, H.-x.; Zhou, F.; Chen, s.; Chen, Y.

2025-09-18 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2025.09.15.25335826 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCurrent clinical management for orthostatic hypotension (OH) in -synucleinopathies is passive and lacks specificity, and objective tools for accurately assessing the true risk level in OH patients are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to develop an objective tool to quantify OH severity, enabling individualized and precision-based clinical management of OH. MethodsFrom January 2021 to March 2025, patients with OH at Beijing Xuanwu Hospital were assigned an OH Symptom-Based Risk Score (0-2 points) based on symptom severity. Active standing tests were performed to continuously collect data including blood pressure (BP) and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFv). Two predictive models were developed: one to identify patients with versus without OH symptoms, and another to predict high-risk patients prone to critical events among symptomatic patients (scoring 1-2 points). ResultsAmong 172 patients with OH (86 asymptomatic, 50%), symptomatic patients showed greater orthostatic reductions in BP and CBFv (both maximum and mean decreases, all P < 0.05) than asymptomatic patients. OH Symptom-Based Risk Scores were significantly correlated with all orthostatic BP and CBFv decline parameters (all P < 0.001). Binary logistic regression models successfully identified symptomatic patients and predicted patients at high risk for critical events among symptomatic patients, with bootstrap-validated accuracy exceeding 70% in multiple models. Orthostatic BP and CBFv decline parameters were independent predictors of OH. ConclusionThe established models provide an objective tool for quantifying OH risk severity, showing significant potential for early clinical warning and optimization of OH management strategies.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.