Everyday Memory in Microsurgically Treated Patients After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Memory declines measured by traditional tests in patients after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) are well documented. Classic examinations of memory problems sometimes do not significantly correlate with memory functions in everyday life. The objective of the study was to assess the specific type of everyday memory loss in patients after microsurgical treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysm causing SAH. METHODS: The prospective controlled, randomized study was conducted using the specific tests for everyday memory measure with high ecological validity. All patients were operated on by the same neurosurgeon (KD). Preoperatively, patients were in a good grade (Hunt-Hess I or II), with no neurological deficit and no hydrocephalus postoperatively. Patients were tested at two phases: 15 and 45 days after microsurgery with the Rivermead behavioral memory test (RBMT) and the cognitive failure questionnaire (CFQ). RESULTS: We compared the results of the tests administered in subjects that underwent microdiscectomy surgery for SAH to a control group that underwent surgery for lumbar disc herniation (DH). CONCLUSION: Neuropsychological assessment of operated patients who sustained SAH showed a decline, compared to the DH group, in everyday memory function. Also, we found failures in perception and motor function in operated SAH patients with a trend of cognitive recovery as time progresses.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".