MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2358364087

Clinical study on vascular cognitive impairment after infarction of basal ganglia-capsula interna area

2013· article· en· W2358364087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chen Jian-pin

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of Clinical Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal gangliaCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentBasal (medicine)Cognitive impairmentInfarctionMedicineInternal medicineCerebral infarctionExecutive functionsCardiologyCentral nervous systemPsychiatryIschemia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the characteristics of vascular cognitive impairment after cerebral infarction in basal ganglia-capsula interna area. Methods Forty-two patients with basal ganglia-capsula interna area infarction three months after onset (case group) who admitted between January 2011 and September 2012,and 35 healthy subjects (control group) were enrolled in present study. The cognitive functions in all participants were evaluated by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) . Results The scores of MoCA in case group were significantly lower than that in control group (18.98±4.36 vs 23.17 ±2.26,P0.01) . Of 42 cases in case group,25 (59.5% ) had a MoCA score less than 23. Compared with control group,the scores of view space and executive capability (2.90 ±1.28 vs 3. 69±0. 83,P0. 01) ,attention (3.45±1.37 vs 4.80±1.08,P0.01) and abstract thinking capability (0.76±0.69 vs1.31 ±0.63,P0.01 ) in case group significantly lowered. Conclusions Vascular cognitive function impairment is common in patients with basal ganglia-capsula interna area infarction,and the dysfunctions of view space and executive capability,attention and abstract thinking capability are its main manifestation.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Journal of Clinical ResearchSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207