Study on cognitive decline in patients diagnosed with brain tumors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of our study was to assess the cognitive performance in patients with primitive brain tumors and to analyze the cognitive status of these patients, correlated with histological type of brain tumors. PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study enrolled 52 patients diagnosed with primitive brain tumors, hospitalized in Neuropsychiatry Hospital of Craiova, Romania, from December 2013 to December 2015. According to the histological type of tumors, the patients were classified into three groups: Group A included 22 patients with meningioma, Group B composed of 16 patients diagnosed with glioblastoma, and Group C including 14 patients diagnosed with diffuse astrocytoma. Neurological examination, neuroimaging assessment [computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for skulls] to diagnose primitive brain tumors, then the confirmation of clinical and histopathological diagnoses were performed for these patients. For cognitive assessment performed before surgery, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Cambridge Cognitive Examination (CAMCOG) scales were used. The results were statistically analyzed using the Student's t-test; p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In terms of age, we did not observe statistically significant differences between the three groups of patients. The group of patients with diffuse astrocytoma presented a higher educational level compared to patients with glioblastoma or meningioma. MoCA score obtained in glioblastoma group was 21.7 points, while in the group of patients with diffuse astrocytoma was 23.5 points, and in the group of patients with meningioma 24.2 points. The cognitive assessment using CAMCOG scale led to the following results: group of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma showed an average score of 83.5 points, the diffuse astrocytoma group had an average score of 88.9 points and the group with meningioma an average score of 90.1 points. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with glioblastoma showed a statistically significant cognitive decline in comparison to patients diagnosed with diffuse astrocytoma (p<0.05). We did not notice statistically significant differences in the cognitive decline of patients with meningioma compared to those diagnosed with diffuse astrocytoma (p>0.05).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".