Montreal cognitive assessment in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Purpose. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially in severe forms, is commonly associated with multiple cognitive problems. Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA) is used to detect cognitive impairment evaluating several areas: visuospatial, memory, attention and fluency. We followed the impact of acute and stable COPD phases on cognition status using MoCA questionnaire. Methods. 38 patients (pts.) smokers, COPD group D (28 stable and 10 acute exacerbation AECOPD) and 10 healthy subjects (control group, CG) having the same level of education and anthropometric data performed spirometry, MoCA questionnaire; blood gases and inflammatory markers were collected. Results. In the MoCA test (total score) AECOPD patients showed a significant lower score (means cognitive alteration) than patients in stable phase and in the control group (15±2,64 AECOPD vs. 20,07±2,39 COPD vs. 26,2±1,03 CG, p<0,0001). Major differences were recorded at attention (0,15 AECOPD vs. 0,375 COPD vs. 0,9 CG, p=0,0003) and visuospatial/executive (15 ±2,64 AECOPD vs. 20,07 ±2,39 COPD vs. 27,2 ±1,03 CG, p=0,0002). Beside the boundry blood gases, we found a moderate correlation between MoCA and inflammatory markers (r=-0.492 p= 0.034 for fibrinogen, respectively r=-0.461, p= 0.048 for CRP). Conclusions. According to this questionnaire, COPD significantly decreases the cognitive status in advanced and acute stages of the disease. Although hypoxemia is recognized as a factor that alters the cognition, the present study advances the idea that in addition to hypoxemia the inflammatory factors might play an important role.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".