MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792220228 · doi:10.18535/ijmsci/v5i3.11

Cognitive Function Differences based on Hemispheric Lesions of First-Ever Ischemic Stroke Patients

2018· article· en· W2792220228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irina Kemala Nasution, Nenni Dwi Aprianti Lubis, Iswandi Erwin, Muhammad Iqbal Nusa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Of Medical Science And Clinical Invention · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentStroke (engine)Lateralization of brain functionIschemic strokeObservational studyMann–Whitney U testInternal medicineCognitive impairmentCardiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyAudiologyPsychiatryIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemic stroke is one of stroke subtype often correlated with disturbance of cognitive function. We conduct an observational study with cross-sectional design of 70 ischemic stroke patients. Objective of this study is to evaluate cognitive differences based on hemispheric lateralization lesions. We used Montreal Cognitive Assessment – Indonesian version (MoCA-Ina) to assess cognitive function resulting on 70 patients, consist of 48 subjects (68.57 %) of left hemispheric stroke and 22 subjects (31.43%) of right hemispheric stroke. As much as 68 subjects (97.14 %) are categorized as having cognitive disturbance. Mean differences of MoCA-Ina was assessed using Mann-Whitney test resulting no significant differences between left vs right hemisphere groups (18.94 + 3.26 vs 19.82 + 3.13; p= 0.320). Further study would warrant lesions lateralizations could affects cognitive performance of ischemic stroke 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Of Medical Science And Clinical InventionSame topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207