P1‐460: CHARACTERISTICS OF COGNITIVE EVALUATION IN TRANSPLANTED LIVER PATIENTS IN A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the year 2017, the liver transplant ranked third in Mexico, in order of frequency, only after the cornea and the kidney, having made a total of 183 procedures. Currently it is known that these patients have a higher risk of cognitive disorders due to: episodes of hepatic encephalopathy, transoperative complications related to hypoperfusion, use of immunosuppressants and the presence of comorbidities, mainly. Despite being considered a reversible etiology of cognitive impairment, it is reported in literature to persist in up to 8% of post-transplant patients; however, in Mexico the frequency of presentation of cognitive impairment in this population and the predominant profile in them is unknown. To know the characteristics of cognitive performance in post-transplant liver after one year. Descriptive, transversal study. Patients from the outpatient transplant clinic were included, who attended between October 01 and December 30, 2018. From the file, biosociodemographic information and biochemical markers were obtained, excluding those with persistent metabolic alterations, neurological or psychiatric pathology. The neurocognitive evaluation included the following tests: Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Semantic and phonological fluency, 5 words, Frontal Assessment Battery and Neuropsi. 60 patients were recruited, 59.7% women, all of them independent for basic and instrumented activities of daily life. The mean age was 53 years (SD: 11.2), the average of schooling 14.35 years (SD: 4.9). 53.2% of patients reported a subjective memory complaint. 40% presented cognitive alterations. The most affected domains were: Visuospatial / Executive ability, Attention, Language, Evocation and Orientation. We recommend the incorporation of cognitive evaluation before and after transplantation in patients, since the frequency of cognitive alterations was higher than that reported in the literature, with variable degree of affectation and clinical cortico-subcortical pattern (with predominance of the latter).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".