Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the effect of Naomaitai combined with memantine on vascular dementia.Methods According to the visiting time,200 patients were divided into treatment group(104 patients accepted on odd day) and control group(96 patients accepted on even day).All patients were given supportive treatment with blood pressure,blood glucose and blood lipid control.In addition,patients were treated with memantine alone(control group) or in combination with Naomaitai(treatment group) for 16 weeks.Cognitive functions were evaluated by Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA) scale and event-related potential P300.Results After treatment for 16 weeks,the total effective rate in treatment group(84.6%) was significantly higher than that in control group(67.7%)(P0.05).The MoCA scores obviously increased after treatment in both groups(P0.05 or P0.01).Compared with control group,the combined treatment with Naomaitai and memantine increased MoCA scores(23.68±1.24 vs 20.09±0.56,P0.05),decreased the latency of event-related potential P3 [(349.8±36.5)ms vs(373.6±41.1)ms,P0.05],and elevated P3 amplitude[(7.1±1.2) μV vs(4.5±1.6)μV,P0.05)].Conclusion The combined treatment with Naomaitai and memantine can improve cognitive functions in patients with vascular dementia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".