MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884791017 · doi:10.17116/jnevro20181186115

Diagnosis and treatment of cognitive impairment in patients with chronic cerebral ischemia: the results of observational Russian program DIAMANT

2018· article· en· W2884791017 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. А. Парфенов, С. А. Живолупов, Ksenia Vladimirovna Nikulina, И. Е. Повереннова, V. G. Lapatuhin, М. Г. Жестикова, Н. Г. Жукова, А. Б. Глазунов

Bibliographic record

VenueS S Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNootropicObservational studyAdverse effectCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicineCognitive impairmentEtiologyPediatricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To investigate the efficacy of divaza in outpatients with cognitive disorders and chronic brain ischemia (CBI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The non-interventional observational program included the data of 2583 outpatients with CBI from 30 cities (8 federal okrugs of the Russian Federation) who were on outpatient neurological treatment and received divaza in a dose of 2 tablets three times a day from Oct 2016 to Jan 2017. Cognitive functions were evaluated using the MoCA scale before and after 3 months of treatment. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Cognitive disorders were identified in 90.7% of patients (<26 MoCA scores). After treatment, the mean MoCA score increased from 19.58±5.13 to 23.99±4.21 (p<0.0001), the number of patients with normal cognitive functions rate (≥26 scores) increased from 9.3 to 41.3%, the number of patients with marked cognitive impairment decreased. The drug was well-tolerated by old and very old patients, adverse events were observed rarely (0.6% of cases). The majority of doctors (88.4%) noticed the effect of divaza as significant improvement or improvement, and 89.6% of patients valued the effect to be excellent or good. The use of divaza, the drug with endothelioprotective and nootropic effects, is pathogenetically justified and promising in patients with cognitive disorders of vascular etiology.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueS S Korsakov Journal of Neurology and PsychiatrySame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207