MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2360298866

Effect of Early Mental Intervention on Cognition and Body Function Rehabilitation of Patients with Cerebral Arterial Thrombosis

2012· article· en· W2360298866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
HE Yanfen

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine & Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Stroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationBarthel indexThrombosisCognitive impairmentInternal medicinePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To explore the effect of early mental intervention-assisted cognition and body function training on rehabilitation of patients with cerebral arterial thrombosis. Methods Sixty patients with ischemic stroke were randomly divided into intervention group and control group, 30 cases in each group. Pateints in the two groups were given cognition and body function rehabilitation training, mental intervention was plus in the intervention group. Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Barthel Index Assessment were used to evaluate cognitive function and daily living ability of patients. Results The scores of MoCA and BI of patients in the two groups were low before treatment, but were raised after treatment. The scores in the intervention group were more ideal than those in the control group (P 0.05). There was a positive correlation of time-effect between cognitive level and physical rehabilitation (r = 0.895, P 0.05). Conclusion Early mental intervention can conduce to improve the cognitive abilities of patients with cerebral arterial thrombosis, which make patients initiatively participate in body function rehabilitation training, and ultimately improve the activity of daily living of 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 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)0.001
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine & EngineeringSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207