Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the features of cognitive impairment in patients with carotid stenosis and expore the related mechanism of cognitive impairment.Methods To select 91 patients who had TIA or minor storke as subjects.According to the severity of carotid stenosis defined by transcranial Doppler and CT angiography or digital subtraction angiography,these patients were divided into the stenosis group(43 patients,stenosis rate≥50%)and the control group(48 patients,stenosis rate50%).The patients were evaluated cognitive function with the montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA).MoCA scores,MoCA subtest scores,and the related risk factors were compared between the two groups.Results After adjusted for gender,age,years of education,hypertension,diabetes,smoking and dyslipidemia,subjects with carotid stenosis had significantly lower level of MoCA score and worse performance in tests of executive function(Trial Making B task),visuospatial ability(clock-drawing task and three-dimensional cube copy) and delayed recall(delayed recall) than control subjects(P0.05),But name,attention,language,abstract,sense of orientation showed similar results in the stenosis group and control groups(P0.05).Conclusion Patients with carotid artery stenosis have definite cognitive impairment,prominently in executive function,visuospatial function and delayed recall.The presence of multiple vascular risk factors could possibly aid to the cognitive decline in patients with carotid disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".