MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2357375756

Influence of Behavior and Cognitive Therapy on Ischemic Strock Inpatients with Mild Vascular Cognitive Impairment

2011· article· en· W2357375756 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shanshan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Journal of Chinese People's Liberation Army · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionMedicineIncidence (geometry)Montreal Cognitive AssessmentClinical Dementia RatingDementiaVascular dementiaNeurologyCognitive impairmentIschemic strokeInternal medicineStroke (engine)PsychiatryIschemiaDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the incidence of mild vascular cognitive impairment(VCI) in inpatients with ischemic stroke,and to observe the influence of behavior and cognitive therapy to cognitive state.Methods Of 422 inpatients in the Neurology Department of No.254 Hospital of PLA from July to December 2010,167 were detected with vascular cognitive impairment no dementia(VCI-ND) using clinical dementia rating(CDR).The VCI-ND patients were divided randomly into treatment group(N=84) and control group(N=83).The patients in both groups were treated with the routine nursing.In addition,the treatment group was treated with behavior and cognitive therapy.The improvements in cognition function were compared using Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA)two weeks later.Results The incidence of VCI-ND was 39.57% in ischemic stroke inpatients.The cognitive scores were significantly improved in treatment group(P0.05),but no improvement was observed in the control group(P0.05).Conclusion The incidence of VCI-ND is high,which strongly influences the prognosis of patients.Thus,more attention should be attached to the clinical nursing procedures.The cognitive function can be improved using multiple nursing strategy,including psychological nursing.

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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Journal of Chinese People's Liberation ArmySame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207