Observation of the efficacy of butyiphthalide and nimodipine in the treatment of vascular dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the efficacy and safety of butyiphthalide and nimodipine in the treatment of vascular dementia(VD). Methods Ninety cases with VD were randomly divided into group A(30 cases), group B(30 cases), and group C(30 cases). On the basis of conventional treatment, patients of group A were given 0.2g butyiphthalide and 30mg nimodipine for three times a day, group B were given 0.2g butyiphthalide for three times a day, and group C were given 30mg nimodipine for three times a day. All the patients were assessed with Montreal cognitive assessment scale(Mo CA) and Activities of Daily Living(ADL) for comparison. The adverse events were recorded in the process of treatment. Results The Mo CA and ADL Scores of three groups after treatment were better than scores before treatment, the differences were statistically signifucant(P0.05). Group A could prominently improve the cognitive function of patients with VD, better than group C, the differences were statistically signifucant(P0.05). Group A and B could prominently improve the cognitive function of patients with VD, better than group C, the differences were statistically signifucant(P0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between A and B group(P0.05). There were no significant differences in incidence rate of side effect among these groups. ConclusionButyiphthalide and nimodipine can prominently improve the cognitive function of patients with vascular dementia and better than butyiphthalide or nimodipine alone. Combination therapy and given butyiphthalide alone can prominently improve the ability of daily living of patients with VD, which are better than nimodipine alone. Morever, their securities are good.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".