MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2354102671

The Features of Event-Related Potential P300 in Patients with Different Stages of Vascular Cognitive Impairment

2008· article· en· W2354102671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Na Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueTianjin yiyao · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent-related potentialAudiologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentLatency (audio)CognitionCognitive impairmentElectroencephalographyP200CorrelationMedicinePsychologyInternal medicinePerceptionNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the features of ERP-P300 in different stages of VCI and provide objective foundations for the early diagnosis of VCI. Methods: Fifty patients with VaD and 50 patients with VCIND were selected according to diagnostic standard of VCI,and ischemic cerebrovascular disease patients with normal cognition as a control group. Auditory ERP-P300 were studied separately. Results: (1)Compared with VCIND and control group,the latencies of N200,P300 and intervals of P200-N200,N200-P300 were obviously prolonged in VaD group. Compared with the control group,the latency of P300 and interval of N200-P300 in VCIND group were prolonged,the differences had statistical significance(P 0.01).(2)In all patients the latencies of N200 and P300 had no correlation with sex,but had a negative correlation with a cognitixe assessment-MMSE score,the latency of P300 had a positive correlation with age. Conclusion: The features of ERP-P300 in VCIND are prolonged latency of P300 and the intervals of N200-P300,and reduced amplitude of P300. In VaD the latency of N200 and the intervals of P200-N200 are prolonged excluded the character of VCIND. ERP-P300 has a diagnosis value for VCI patients.

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 score0.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTianjin yiyao→Same topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→