MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367620688

The Efficacy Observation of Nimodipine on Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients with Post-Stroke

2012· article· en· W2367620688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang Wen-fen

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of General Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNimodipineMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionStroke (engine)RehabilitationTreatment and control groupsInternal medicinePhysical therapyAnesthesiaCognitive impairmentPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To observe Nimodipine in patients of post-stroke on cognitive function improvement.Methods 145 cases of post-stroke patients with Cognitive dysfunction were randomly divided into two groups,the control group with conventional treatment of the primary disease,rehabilitation training and psychological support;the treatment group at the same time on the basis of a combination of Nimodipine tablets with 30mg,3 times one day,each group of patients with treatment and follow-up to the end of the 4th week.The Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale(Montreal Cognitive Assessment,MoCA) were used at Pre-treatment and treatment at the end of 4 weeks.Results MoCA Scale score showed no statistical difference between two groups of patients before treatment(P0.05);4 weeks after treatment,MoCA Scale score of the control group showed improvement,but no statistical difference was observed when compared with Pre-treatment(P0.05),and MoCA Scale score of the treatment group show significantly improvement,with statistical difference on the faculty of memory and visuopatial/executive(P0.05).Conclusion The efficacy of Nimodipine on cognitive function improvement in patients of post-stroke was confirmed.

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)0.005
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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 venueChinese Journal of General PracticeSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207