Comparison of integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine therapy on vascular cognitive impairment with no dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effect of western medicine therapy assisted by Ginkgo biloba tablets (GBT) in patients with vascular cognitive impairment with no dementia (VCIND). Eighty patients with VCIND were randomly divided into two groups: the conventional treatment group (control group) and the combined treatment group. The conventional treatment group was provided with anti-platelet aggregation conventional treatment. In this group, 75 mg aspirin was given three times a day for 3 months, whereas the combined treatment group was given 19.2 mg GBT three times a day for 3 months along with conventional anti-platelet aggregation treatment. Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography were used to observe changes in cognitive ability and cerebral blood flow in patients with VCIND before and after treatment in the two groups. After 3 months of treatment, the MoCA scores of execution, attention, abstraction, delayed memory, and orientation were significantly increased in the combined treatment group compared with those before treatment and those in the control group after treatment. In addition, the blood flow velocity of the anterior cerebral artery was significantly increased in the combined treatment group. GBT can improve the therapeutic efficacy, cognitive ability, and cerebral blood flow supply of patients with VCIND.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".