Correlation between Subjective Memory Complaint, Objective Cognitive Impairment and Chinese Medical Syndrome of Liver Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To discuss the correlation between subjective memory complaint(SMC),objective cognitive impairment,depression and Chinese medical syndrome of liver depression in the elderly.Methods Totally 102 participants with SMC and 20 normal cognitive functional controls without SMC were recruited.The 102SMC patients were divided into SMC with normal cognition(52cases)and SMC with decreased cognition(50cases).Participants were asked to rate the degree of their perceived cognitive decline by Subjective Memory Complaint Visual Rating Scale(SMC-VAS).The objective cognitive function was examined by using Mini-Mental State Examination(MMSE)and Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA).Depression was assessed by using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale(HAMD-17)and Chinese medical syndrome of liver depression was also investigated.Results The HAMD-17 scores in SMC cognitively normal group were significantly higher than those in SMC cognitive decline group and the control group(P0.05,P0.01).The average scores of liver depression syndrome in SMC cognitively normal group were significantly higher than those in SMC cognitive decline group(P0.05).In SMC cognitively normal group,the scores of SMC-VAS had no significant association with MoCA scores,but were positively correlated with the HAMD-17 scores(P0.01)and the scores of liver depression syndrome(P0.05).In SMC cognitively decline group,the scores of SMC-VAS were negatively correlated with MoCA scores(P0.05)and were positively correlated with the HAMD-17 scores(P0.01)and the scores of liver depression syndrome(P0.01).Conclusion A considerable part of SMC individuals have no objective cognitive impairment.SMC with or without cognitive impairment is associated with depression and Chinese medical syndrome of liver depression.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".