MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2353330022

Effects of Biofeedback Therapy on Neurologic Function,Anxiety and Depression of Patients with Acute Cerebral Infarction

2008· article· en· W2353330022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiao Hong-qion

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Injury and Functional Reconstruction · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyHamdDepression (economics)Cerebral infarctionMedicineAnesthesiaBiofeedbackPsychologyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryIschemia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To explore the effects of biofeedback therapy(BFT)on anxiety,depression and neurologic function of acute cerebral infarction patients.Methods:One hundred five patients with anxiety and depression after acute cerebral infarction were randomly divided into groups control,observation and experimental.All the patients were given conventional therapy.Both observation and experimental group were given Fluoxetine,while the experimental group were given additional biofeedback therapy.The anxiety and depression of patients were evaluated by Hamilton Depression(HAMD)and Hamilton Anxiety(HAMA).The activity of daily life(ADL)of patients were measured by Modified Barthel Index(MBI)and the neurologic function were analysed by Canadian neurological Scale(CNS).Results:The neurologic function recovery in the experimental,observation and control groups were 91.5%,65.7%,and 45.7% respectively,and the anxiety and depression recovery 89.2%,71.4%,and 40% respectively.The neurologic function recovery in both experimental and observation groups was significantly better than in the control group(P0.01).Conclusion:The biofeedback therapy can improve anxiety,depression and neurologic function of patients after acute cerebral infarction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural Injury and Functional ReconstructionSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207