MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740083574

Correlação entre instrumentos de medida na Doença de Parkinson: um estudo transversal

2016· dissertation· pt· W2740083574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neildja Maria da Silva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Research in Diverse Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMedicineGynecologyPsychologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducao: A Doenca de Parkinson e descrita como um disturbio do movimento, mas pode incluir sintomas nao-motores, como comprometimento cognitivo e demencia. Objetivos: rastrear o declinio cognitivo e correlacionar instrumentos de medida em individuos com Doenca de Parkinson, comparando-os a individuos saudaveis. Metodos: Estudo transversal, realizado na Faculdade de Ciencias da Saude do Trairi/UFRN. A amostra de 20 individuos (DP=10 e idosos saudaveis n=10). Foram aplicados ficha socio-demografica, UPDRS (II e III), Escala Hoehn & Yahr, Mini Exame do Estado Mental, Prova Cognitiva de Leganes (PCL) e Avaliacao Cognitiva de Montreal (MoCA). Resultados: Observou-se declinio cognitivo em ambos os grupos, atraves do instrumento MoCA (90% dos individuos do grupo DP e 80% do grupo saudavel), sem diferenca estatisticamente significativa (p=0,10); foi verificada associacao entre a UPDRS II e PCL (r=-0,69, p=0,03) e entre UPDRS III e PCL (r=-0,66, p=0,04). Conclusoes: Foi verificado deficit cognitivo no grupo DP, sem diferenca significativa quando comparado aos individuos saudaveis. Houve associacao entre funcao motora e cognitiva em individuos com DP. O MoCA foi mais sensivel no rastreio do deficit cognitivo em individuos com DP.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcademic Research in Diverse FieldsFrench-language works237,207