MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803796723 · doi:10.18087/cardio.2018.5.10117

Brain Perfusion, Cognitive Functions, and Vascular Age in Middle Aged Patients With Essential Arterial Hypertension

2018· article· en· W2803796723 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. А. Парфенов, Т. М. Оstroumova, Е. М. Перепелова, В. А. Перепелов, А. И. Кочетков, О. Д. Остроумова

Bibliographic record

VenueKardiologiia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbal fluency testCerebral blood flowStroop effectMontreal Cognitive AssessmentHyperintensityCardiologyMedicineNeuropsychologyInternal medicineAudiologyPsychologyFluencyTrail Making TestCognitionDementiaMagnetic resonance imagingPsychiatryRadiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cognitive functions and cerebral blood flow measured with arterial spin labeling (ASL) and their possible correlations with vascular age in untreated middle-aged patients with grade 1-2 essential arterial hypertension (EAH). METHODS: We examined 73 subjects aged 40-59 years (33 with EAH and 40 healthy volunteers [controls]). Neuropsychological assessment included Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making test (part A and part B), Stroop Color and Word Test, verbal fluency test (phonemic verbal fluency and semantic verbal fluency), 10‑item word list learning task. All subjects underwent brain MRI. MRI protocol included ASL. Vascular age was calculated by two techniques - using Framingham Heart Study risk tables and SCORE project scales. RESULTS: Patients with EAH had lower performance on phonemic verbal fluency test and lower mean MoCA score (29.2±1.4 vs. 28.1±1.7 points) compared to controls (13.4±3.2, р=0.002; 29.2±1.4, p=0.001, respectively). White matter hyperintensities (WMH) were present in 7.5 % controls and in 51.5 % EAH patients (р=0.0002). Cerebral blood flow (CBF) in EAH patients was lower in both right (39.1±5.6 vs. 45.8±3.2 ml / 100 g / min) and left frontal lobes of the brain (39.2±6.2 и 45.2±3.6 ml / 100 g / min, respectively) compared to controls (р.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKardiologiiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207