MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552611183 · doi:10.14710/dmj.v5i4.15917

HUBUNGAN FIBRILASI ATRIUM TERHADAP PENURUNAN FUNGSI KOGNITIF

2016· article· id· W2552611183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rofat Askoro Bimandoko, Pipin Ardhianto, Hexanto Muhartomo

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latar Belakang: Fibrilasi atrium merupakan aritmia jantung yang paling sering ditemui. Fibrilasi atrium diyakini memiliki korelasi terhadap terjadinya gangguan kognitif namun mekanismenya masih belum diketahui dengan jelas. Salah satu instrumen untuk mengukur fungsi kognitif adalah Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Tujuan: Mengetahui hubungan fibrilasi atrium dengan penurunan fungsi kognitif yang diukur dengan metode Montreal Cognitive Assessment versi Indonesia (MoCA-Ina). Metode: Desain penelitian ini adalah penelitian observasional dengan rancangan cross sectional. Subjek penelitian dari 14 subjek dengan fibrilasi atrium dan 14 subjek dengan irama sinus di Instalasi Elang RSUP Dr.Kariadi Semarang pada bulan April hingga Mei 2016. Kelompok penelitian dilakukan penilaian fungsi kognitif dengan menggunakan Montreal Cognitive Assesment versi Indonesia (MoCA-Ina). Hasil: Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat penurunan fungsi kognitif pada subjek dengan fibrilasi atrium sebanyak 13 subjek (92,9%) dan subjek dengan irama sinus sebanyak 3 subjek (21,4%). Penelitian ini menunjukkan hubungan yang signifikan antara fibrilasi atrium dengan kejadian penurunan fungsi kognitif (p=0,000). Kesimpulan: Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa terdapat hubungan yang signifikan antara fibrilasi atrium dengan penurunan fungsi kognitif.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.001

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207