MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2393708547

Clinical effects of oxiracetam for treatment of vascular cognitive impairment in varying degree

2012· article· en· W2393708547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang Jiao-lan

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Universitatis Medicinalis Nanjing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentDementiaVascular dementiaMedicineInternal medicineCognitionPsychologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To investigate the effects of oxiracetam treatment for vascular cognitive impairment(VCI) in varying degrees.Methods:Sixty patients with VCI were selected.Among them,30 patients were with vascular cognitive impairment no dementia(VCIND)and 30 patients with vascular dementia(VD).All patients received conventional base treatment and the oxiracetam treatment.The event-related potentials P300(ERP-P300) and Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA) of all patients were observed and compared before and after the treatment.Results:After the treatment,the scores of MoCA of all patients showed improvement(VCIND:t = 11.886,P 0.01;VD:t = 2.242,P 0.05).After the treatment,ERP-P300 of the VCIND group was improved significantly,the latency period of ERP-P300(P300-PL) was significantly shortened(t = 5.799,P 0.01) while the amplitude(P300Amp) was significantly increased(t = 17.603,P 0.01);but the ERP-P300 of the VD group had no obvious improvement(PL:t = 1.414,P 0.05;Amp:t = 1.069,P 0.05).There were significant differences in the scores of MoCA,the latency period and amplitude of ERP-P300 between VCIND group and VaD group(t = 2.135,4.402,7.682,P 0.05).Conclusion:Oxiracetam are beneficial in the treatment of VCI,especially effective to the patients with VCIND.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Universitatis Medicinalis NanjingSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207