[Assessment of cognitive function, emotions and activities of daily living in patients with multiple system atrophy].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the cognitive function, emotional status and activities of daily living in patients with multiple system atrophy (MSA). METHODS: Thirty-two MSA patients and 38 healthy controls from October 2009 to November 2012 were recruited from our hospital. Their cognitive function, emotional status and activities of daily living were assessed. Cognitive function was assessed by Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE); emotional status by self-rating depression scale (SDS) and self-rating anxiety scale (SAS); daily living and activities by activities of daily living scale (ADL). Data analysis was performed with SPSS 19.0. And the results were presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Comparison of means was performed with independent sample t test. And Pearson's correlation test was used for correlation analysis. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Mild or moderate cognitive impairment was documented in 71.9% of MSA patients. The scores of MoCA and MMSE in the MSA group were significantly lower than those in the control group. And the scores of ADL, SDS and SAS in the MSA group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). MoCA subitems such as space/executive function, attention, abstraction, language and delayed memory of the MSA group were significantly lower than those of the control group (P < 0.05). A negative correlation existed between the scores of MoCA and MMSE with disease duration (P < 0.01). There was a positive correlation between the scores of SDS and SAS with ADL and disease duration (P < 0.05). And the relationship was significant between the scores of SDS and SAS (P < 0.01). A positive correlation existed between scores of ADL with disease duration (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: MSA patients have certain degrees of cognitive impairment, emotion disorders and impaired ADL. Cognitive impairment in MSA patients may be more common than previously. Furthermore, the clinical features of cognitive impairment in these patients may have some clinical values for references.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".