MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2351863063

Impact of large and small artery lesions on cognitive function after acute ischemic stroke

2014· article· en· W2351863063 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yao Tin

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua zhongyiyao zazhi · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesionMedicineArteryStroke (engine)CardiologyInternal medicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentIschemic strokeRadiologyIschemiaSurgeryCognitive impairmentDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the impact of large and small artery lesions on cognitive function after acute ischemic stroke. Methods: 60 cases of patients with acute ischemic stroke were collected and divided into large artery lesion group and small artery lesion group based on the TOAST classification diagnosis criteria and iconography data, with 17 cases in large artery lesion group and 43 cases in small artery lesion group. Cognitive function of two groups was evaluated and compared with each other by MoCA scale at 90 days after the stroke. Results: The numbers of ischemic area in cortex and frontal lobe of large artery lesion group are more than small artery lesion group(P0.05), but in pons the result is contrary(P0.05). The MoCA scores of naming, attention, language and abstraction in large artery lesion group were lower than those in small artery lesion group(P0.05, P0.05). Conclusion: The cognitive impairment of large artery lesion after acute ischemic stroke is much severer than that of small artery lesion.

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)0.002
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua zhongyiyao zazhiSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207