MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2386686005

Efficacy of Phlegm-eliminating and Stasis-resolving Therapy in Treatment of Cognitive Impairment among Patients with Hepatolenticular Degeneration:A Report of 21 Cases

2014· article· en· W2386686005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Han Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anhui University of Chinese Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhlegmMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineCognitionCognitive impairmentBlood stasisTreatment and control groupsInternal medicineMini–Mental State ExaminationSurgeryPhysical therapyTraditional Chinese medicinePsychiatryPathologyAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To observe the efficacy of phlegm-eliminating and stasis-resolving therapy in the treatment of cognitive impairment among patients with hepatolenticular degeneration(HLD).Methods Forty-two HLD patients with cognitive impairment were randomly assigned to treatment group and control group.The control group received conventional treatment,while the treatment group received Gandouling Tablet in addition to conventional treatment.The cognitive function of patients was evaluated by the mini-mental state examination(MMSE)and the Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA)before and after 12weeks of treatment.Results After treatment,both groups showed significant increases in total MMSE score and total MoCA score(P0.01);the treatment group had significantly higher increases in total MMSE score and total MoCA score than the control group(P0.01).Conclusion Phlegm-eliminating and stasis-resolving therapy is effective in improving the cognitive function of HLD patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Anhui University of Chinese MedicineSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207