[Effects of early intervention training on cognitive impairment in critical patients].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics of cognitive impairment in critical patients, and to explore the role of early cognitive intervention training in improving cognitive impairment in critical patients. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted. 133 patients in conscious and normal intelligence admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) of Hefei Second People's Hospital from January 2015 to June 2018 were enrolled. The patients were divided into control group (n = 66) and cognitive intervention group (n = 67) according to random number table based on chronological number for entry into the study. Cognitive function was assessed by Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA scale) within 24 hours after ICU admission. The patients in the cognitive intervention group received a series of scientifically designed cognitive training sessions (playing electronic musical keyboard, learning simple Spanish, clock-drawing, psychological intervention) for 2 months, and follow-up was completed if the patient was discharged from ICU. While the patients in the control group did not undertake any cognitive training. After 2 months, the cognitive function of patients in both groups were assessed with MoCA scale. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to different age groups (20-40 years old, 41-60 years old, 61-80 years old) to explore the effect of cognitive intervention training in different age groups. According to the subjective evaluation of the patient's ability to live 2 months after cognitive intervention by the patient or his relatives, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to evaluate the predictive value of the total score of MoCA for patients' ability to live after cognitive intervention. RESULTS: = 6.321, P = 0.015]. The total score of MoCA scale and four sub-item cognitive domain scores including visual space and execution power, protection of memory, attention execution, and orientation in the cognitive intervention group were significant higher than those in the control group (MoCA scale total score: 26.73±1.92 vs. 24.95±2.26, visual space and executive power score: 4.39±0.70 vs. 3.95±0.88, protection of memory score: 8.91±1.03 vs. 8.24±1.37, attention execution score: 5.21±0.77 vs. 4.79±1.00, orientation score: 5.67±0.53 vs. 5.44±0.68, all P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found in verbal skills score (2.55±0.56 vs. 2.53±0.56, P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the total MoCA scale score of the younger sample (20-40 years old, n = 20) was recovered by 2.10±1.55 in the cognitive intervention group after 2 months of cognitive intervention, which was significantly higher than that in the control group (n = 21; 0.24±2.76, P < 0.05). In the middle-aged and the older population [aged 41-60 years old (n = 20) and 61-80 years old (n = 27)], the total MoCA scale scores were recovered slightly after cognitive intervention as compared with those in the younger sample (0.43±1.47, -1.91±2.20 vs. 2.10±1.55, both P < 0.05), which were significantly lower than those in the control group [aged 41-60 years old (n = 21) and 61-80 years old (n = 24), -0.78±1.38, -4.41±2.17, both P < 0.01]. It was suggested that cognitive intervention training played an active role in the recovery of cognitive function in young critical patients. It was shown by ROC curve analysis that the area under ROC curve (AUC) of MoCA scale total score for predicting daily life ability after cognitive intervention was 0.732 with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of 0.646-0.819. When the best cut-off value was 24.5, the sensitivity was 89.3%, the specificity was 60.2%, the positive predictive value was 85.7%, and the negative predictive value was 80.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Early cognitive intervention could efficiently abate the deterioration of cognitive function in critical patients in ICU and had significant effects on the visual space and executive power, protection of memory, attention execution and orientation. Cognitive intervention exerted significantly positive effects on the recovery of cognitive function in the younger sample population (aged 20-40 years old).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».