HUBUNGAN FIBRILASI ATRIUM DENGAN GANGGUAN KOGNITIF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibrilasi atrium dan gangguan kognitif merupakan masalah kesehatan utama, patomekanisme secara pasti belum jelas dan penelitian sebelumnya menemukan hubungan yang bermakna. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui hubungan fibrilasi atrium dengan gangguan kognitif dengan menggunakan tes Montreal Cognitive Assessment versi Indonesia ( MoCA-Ina). Desain penelitian adalah Cross Sectional Study, pada 60 subjek penderita dengan masing-masing 30 subjek dengan fibrilasi atrium dan 30 subjek tanpa fibrilasi atrium di Poli Kardiologi dan Poli Saraf Rumah Sakit Wahidin Sudirohusodo di Makassar, dari bulan Maret hingga Mei 2013. Pada kelompok penelitian dilakukan pemeriksaan fungsi kognitif menggunakan instrument tes MoCA-Ina. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan rerata usia penderita dengan fibrilasi atrium dan tanpa fibrilasi atrium (55.00 SB 7.17 vs 52.03 SB 5.73 tahun) dan jenis kelamin laki-laki lebih banyak dibanding perempuan pada penderita fibrilasi atrium (56.7% vs 43.3%). Gangguan kognitif dijumpai 86,7% pada subjek penderita dengan fibrilasi atrium dan 6,7% pada penderita tanpa fibrilasi atrium, dengan nilai p 0.000 dengan OR 91,00% dan IK 95%. Unsur kognitif yang paling banyak terganggu adalah memori tertunda dan atensi. Penelitian ini menerangkan terdapat hubungan fibrilasi atrium dengan gangguan kognitif.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".