Control study of endovascular stenting in relieving effect of carotid artery stenosis on cognitive function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the role of endovascular stenting in relieving the effect of carotid artery stenosis on cognitive function. Methods A total of 36 patients with carotid artery stenosis admitted to Department of Neurology of Jiangmen Central Hospital from January 2012 to March 2013 were selected as the clinical study subjects and divided into the surgical group and the control group according to the patients' willingness. The 20 patients of the surgical group received endovascular stenting and the 16 patients of the control group received conventional drug therapy. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale(MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Eximation scale(MMSE) were used to evaluate the patients' cognitive function at admission and 3 and 6 months after admission. Results The surgical group was better than the control group in MoCA and MMSE scores 3 and 6 months after admission, with statistical significant differences. Conclusion Compared to single drug therapy, endovascular stenting can improve the cognitive function impairment of carotid artery stenosis patients more effectively.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".