The influence of hyperbaric oxygenation on cognitive function in patients with lacunar infarction nursing experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the influence of hyperbaric oxygenation on mild cognitive function in patients with Lacunar infarction. Methods 100 patients with lacunar infarction and mild cognitive dysfunction were enrolled in Department Neurology of General Hospital of Nanjing military region from January 2013 to September 2013. The patients were divided into hyperbaric oxygenation group and control group. The cognitive function were estimated by Moca scale. Results Age,sex,education,hypertension,diabetes and the Moca score in hyperbaric oxygenation group were similar to those in control subjects( P 0. 05). After three months of treatment,Moca score( 24. 25 ± 2. 46 vs. 22. 72 ± 2. 56,P 0. 001),visual spatial( 3. 54 ± 0. 85 vs. 2. 96 ± 0. 96),attention( 1. 55 ± 0. 78 vs. 1. 23 ± 0. 68,P = 0. 006),language( 1. 55 ±0. 78 vs. 1. 23 ±0. 68,P =0. 006) and orientation function( 5. 57 ±0. 72 vs. 5. 08 ±1. 17,P =0. 041) scores were higher in hyperbaric oxygenation group than those of control group,and there were no obvious adverse effect. Conclusion Hyperbaric oxygenation had effect on the treatment of cognitive dysfunction in patients with lacunar infarction.
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".