[Vascular risk factors and cognitive impairment of patients with magnetic resonance imaging-defined subcortical ischemic depression].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the vascular risk factors and neuropsychological profiles of patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined subcortical ischemic depression (SID). METHODS: Thirty-five SID patients, 37 patients with subcortical ischemic vascular disease without depression (SIVD) and 40 normal controls (NC) participated in this case-control study. The SID and SIVD groups were recruited from the Department of Neurology, First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University between October 2010 and September 2011. And the NC group came from Medical Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University over the same period. The vascular risk factors of all participants were assessed by the Framingham scale. Depression symptoms were assessed by the geriatric depression scale (GDS) and Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) while cognitive functions by the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and Montreal cognitive clock drawing task (CDT). RESULTS: Both the SID (12.3 ± 4.7) and SIVD (13.5 ± 3.4) groups showed significantly higher Framingham scores than the NC group (8.6 ± 1.8) (F = 20.850, P = 0.000). Compared with the NC group (28.3 ± 1.8; 23.1 ± 3.4; 8.0 ± 1.8), the MMSE, MoCA and CDT scores were significantly lower in the SID (26.7 ± 2.5; 20.0 ± 4.0; 2.0 ± 2.7) and SIVD (26.8 ± 1.9; 20.7 ± 3.0; 6.1 ± 2.1) groups (P < 0.05). There were significantly lower CAMCOG-C scores in the SID (82.7 ± 9.0) and SIVD (86.2 ± 6.9) groups versus the NC group (92.3 ± 6.2) (P < 0.05) and similarly in the SID group versus the SIVD group (P < 0.05). Among the subtests of CAMCOG-C, the orientation, language and memory scores in both SID (9.0 ± 1.4; 24.7 ± 4.0; 19.5 ± 3.4) and SIVD (9.4 ± 0.9; 25.5 ± 2.1; 20.3 ± 2.3) groups were significantly lower than those in the NC group (9.9 ± 0.4; 27.4 ± 1.9; 22.1 ± 2.4) (P < 0.05); the praxis scores in the SID group (9.4 ± 1.9) were significantly lower than those in the NC group (10.4 ± 1.5) (P < 0.05). And the thinking and perception scores in the SID group (5.4 ± 1.7; 6.3 ± 1.4) were significantly lower than those in the SIVD (6.2 ± 1.3; 7.0 ± 1.4) and NC (6.6 ± 1.3; 7.2 ± 1.4) groups. In the SID group, no significant correlation was found between the Framingham scores and neuropsychological assessments. There were a negative correlation between the GDS, HAMD scores and MMSE, MoCA, CAMCOG-C and CDT scores (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The SID patients demonstrate multiple neuropsychological deficits, especially in thinking, perception and praxis. No significant correlation between vascular risk factors and depression symptoms is found in SID 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".