MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2360246566

Study on Cognitive Function and Quality of Life of Patients with Depression after Hemorrhagic Stroke

2015· article· en· W2360246566 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueXiandai shengwu yixue jinzhan · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamdMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPost-stroke depressionDepression (economics)MedicineInternal medicineStroke (engine)Barthel indexRehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)CognitionProspective cohort studyPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentSignificant differencePsychiatryDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To explore the characteristics of the cognitive function and quality of life in patients with depression after hemorrhagic stroke(Post-Stroke Depression, PSD) in different periods. Methods: Prospective cohort study of 57 PSD patients and 91 NPSD patients was designed and the data collection of China Stroke Scale(CSS), Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD), Montreal Cognitive Assessment(Mo CA) and Barthel Index(BI) occurred during the intervention period at baseline, 6 weeks and 12 weeks. Results: The difference of the Mo CA scores and BI scores between PSD patient and NPSD patient at baseline was not statistically significant(11.6 ±2.9 vs 11.2 ±3.1, P0.05; 45.6 ±8.3 vs 46.2 ±7.2, P0.05 respectively). While the Moca scores and BI scores of PSD patient after 6weeks and 12 weeks after treatment were significantly lower than NPSD patient(13.4±2.3 vs 15.8±2.8, P0.000; 18.2±3.2 vs 22.6±2.4, P0.000; 63.8±6.5 vs 72.2±7.5, P0.000; 77.2±4.1 vs 85.8±5.6, P0.000). Conclusions: The cognitive function was speculated as an independent predictor factor of long-term prognosis of PSD patients, which could help to develop PSD rehabilitation strategies.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueXiandai shengwu yixue jinzhanSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207