The cognitive function changes of patients accepted carotid artery stenting in postoperative different period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the changes of cognitive function in different period after carotid artery stenting and explore the related mechanism of cognitive changes.Methods 76 carotid stenosis patients were treated with carotid artery stenting and 63 patients were given coronary artery stenting(control group) as subjects.All patients were accepted DSA,and respectively were tested with montreal cognitive assessment at preoperative and third day,tenth month after stenting.Results Compared postoperative third day with preoperative cognitive function,cognitive test scores including MoCA total score,Trial Making B task,three-dimensional cube copy,clock-drawing task,attention,and delayed recall had significantly declined.Compared postoperative tenth month with preoperative,cognitive test scores including attention,and delayed recall were significantly improved.Compared postoperative third day with postoperative tenth month,cognitive test scores including MoCA total score,Trial Making B task,three-dimensional cube copy,clock-drawing task,attention,and delayed recall were significantly differentiated.Only cognitive test scores including attention and delayed recall of preoperative and postoperative third day were significantly differentiated between the two groups.Conclusions Carotid artery stenting can truly improve attention and delay recall cognitive function.Patients may occur transient,reversible cognitive decline in early stage after stenting,but mostly cognitive function can occur recuperative improvement in distant stage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".