MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2351607462

Mild vascular cognitive impairment in aged patients with lacunar cerebral infarction

2012· article· en· W2351607462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yang Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua laonian xin-nao-xueguanbing zazhi · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineCognitionIncidence (geometry)Lacunar strokeStroke (engine)Cognitive impairmentExecutive functionsCerebral infarctionInternal medicineCardiologyAudiologyIschemic strokePhysical therapyPsychiatryIschemia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To study the incidence of mild vascular cognitive impairment(MVCI) in aged patients with lacunar infarction(LI) and the effect of MVCI at different locations on cognitive domains. Methods One hundred and twenty aged patients with LI enrolled in this study and 84 patients without stroke served as LI group and control group,respectively.Their cognitive function was assessed with Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA).Results The incidence of MVCI was higher in LI group than in control group(45.83%vs 26.19%,P0.05).The total score of MoCA and the scores of visual space,executive function,nomenclature,attention power,calculation ability, linguistic function,ive ability,delayed recall,and orientation force were lower in LI group than in control group(P0.01).Conclusion The incidence of MVCI is high in aged patients with LI.MVCI exerts its effect on different cognitive domains,especially on space and executive capacity,memory and linguistic function.Executive dysfunction is the significant feature of aged patients with LI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua laonian xin-nao-xueguanbing zazhiSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207