Donepezil Improves Gait Performance in Patients with an Acute Cerebral Infarction: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemiplegia is a common symptom after acute cerebral infarction. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the influence factors of gait performance and investigate whether donepezil could improve gait performance in patients with an acute cerebral infarction. METHODS: A total of 107 patients who experienced unilateral paresis after an acute cerebral infarction incident were enrolled in this prospectively observational study. Participants underwent a 3- month assessment. At the study's conclusion, patients were divided into 2 groups-those who received donepezil daily (observation Group) and those who did not (Control Group). RESULTS: There was a significant difference (t=3.269, P=0.001) of Wisconsin Gait Scale (WGS) score between single site infarction (27.11±6.65) and multiple sites infarction (31.54±6.42). For gender, smoking, drinking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and diabetes, there was no difference in WGS scores between subgroups (P>0.05), respectively. The patient's admission National Institute of Health Stroke Scale(NIHSS) score had a strongly positive correlation with WGS score (r=0.850, P<0.001). Besides, age (r=0.218, P=0.024), glycosylated hemoglobin (r=0.274, P=0.004), MMSE (r=-0.261, P=0.007) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (r=-0.272, P=0.005) had a weak correlation with WGS scores. Multivariate analysis showed age (95% CI: 0.042~0.188, P=0.002), admission NIHSS score (95% CI: 2.405~3.137, P<0.001) and multiple sites infarction (95% CI: 0.044~2.983, P=0.044) were independent risk factors of WGS scores. WGS scores of both observation and control groups gradually decreased after admission (P<0.001). At 3 months after admission, WGS score of the observation group was significantly lower than the control group (t=2.468, P=0.015). There were no significant differences between observation and control group at admission and 1 month after admission (P>0.05) and WGS scores of both single site and multiple sites infarction gradually decreased at one month and three months after admission (P<0.001), while there was no significant difference between two groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Admission NIHSS score, age and multiple sites infarction were independent risk factors of WGS score. Donepezil could improve gait performance in patients with acute cerebral infarction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".