MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756801290 · doi:10.12659/msm.904254

A Risk Factor Analysis of Cognitive Impairment in Elderly Patients with Chronic Diseases in a Chinese Population

2017· article· en· W2756801290 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Science Monitor · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentRisk factorMedicineChinese populationCognitionPopulationGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND This study analyzed the risk factors of cognitive impairment (CI) in elderly patients with chronic diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total of 385 elderly patients with chronic diseases were selected and assigned into CI and normal groups. The activities of daily living (ADL), global deterioration scale (GDS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), and mini nutritional assessment (MNA) were performed to analyze the differences between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis was conducted for risk factors of CI in elderly patients with chronic diseases. RESULTS There were differences in age, education level, type 2 diabetes mellitus, multifocal cerebral infarction, hearing, and eyesight between CI and normal groups. Patients in the CI group showed more CD4+ cells, more admission times, and higher GDS scores than the normal group. Also, MMSE and MoCA scores revealed differences in total score, directive force, attention and calculating ability, language, delayed memory, reading comprehension, writing, and visual-spatial ability between the 2 groups. The number of B and CD8+ cells, ADL, and MNA scores were protective factors, while cerebral infarction history, number of CD4+ cells, admission times, GDS score, and age were risk factors of CI in elderly patients with chronic diseases. CONCLUSIONS Our study provides evidence that cerebral infarction history, number of CD4+ cells, admission times, GDS score, and age are risk factors of CI in elderly patients with chronic diseases.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.337 · 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