Weight Changes and Cognitive Functions in Patients with Stroke: Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective of the study: Cognition is an important factor for determining the rate of recovery of stoke so finding the factors that might affect cognition is important to improve it and so to improve recovery rate in patients with stroke. Methodology: Fifteen chronic stroke male patients were recruited to this study. The patients age ranged from55 to 65. All patients were assessed for body mass index (BMI) and also for cognitive functions by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) scale and rehacom. Results: the study found a Negative strong correlation between MOCA and BMI (R= -.95),Negative moderate correlation between BMI and Attention( R=-.66) ,Weak negative correlation between BMI and memory ( R=-.38),Weak positive correlation between MOCA and memory (R=.38),Moderate positive correlation between MOCA and attention (R=.61) and Strong positive correlation between memory and solutions (R=.77).Conclusion: There is a negative correlation between BMI and cognition, so it should consider body weight management in the rehabilitation of stroke patients to improve cognitive functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".