MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2392324569

Efficacy of fluoxetine in treatment of depression and functional rehabilitation in patients with acute cerebral infarction

2015· article· en· W2392324569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
FU Zhao-pin

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Medicine and Clinic · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamdMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDepression (economics)Statistical significanceFluoxetineInternal medicineTreatment and control groupsPost-stroke depressionPhysical therapyRehabilitationHamilton depression scaleCerebral infarctionSignificant differenceCognitive impairmentDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the efficacy of fluoxetine in treating depression,motor dysfunction and cognitive dysfunction in the patients with acute cerebral infarction(ACI).Methods 186 patients with ACI hospitalized in our hospital from Jan 2012 to Dec 2012 were enrolled in this study and randomly assigned to the control group(n=93)and the observation group(n=93).The control group received the conventional therapy,including dehydration and reducing blood glucose.On the basis of the control group treatment,the observation group was given additional fluoxetine(20mg/d).The two groups were treated for 12 consecutive months.The depression status was evaluated by using the Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD),the motor function was evaluated by using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale(NIHSS),and the cognitive function was evaluated by using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale(MoCA).The scores were compared before and after treatment and between the two groups.Results The NIHSS scores after 3-month treatment in the two groups were significant declined compared with before treatment,the difference had statistical significance(P0.05),moreover the NIHSS scores after 3-,6-,12-month treatment in the observation group were significantly less than those in the control group,the differences between among groups had statistical significant(P0.05).The MoCA scores and the depression status in the control group had no statistical differences between before and after treatment(P0.05);while the MoCA scores after 3-months treatment in the observation group were increased than that before treatment(P0.05),and the depression status was improved to some extent(P0.05).Conclusion Adding fluoxetine on the basis of the conventional therapy could effectively relieve the depression status of the patients with ACI,improve their motor function and cognitive function,but it is needed to insist middle and long term medication.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory Medicine and ClinicSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207