A clinical study on weakness of eye closure in supranuclear facial paralysis after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
目的 确切了解脑卒中后中枢性面瘫闭目乏力的发生率,探讨其发生机制.方法 观察1年内所有起病7 d内入院的脑卒中患者.使用美国国立卫生院脑卒中量表(National Institute of Health stroke scale,NIHSS)中第4项面瘫评分及日本面瘫评分(Japan facial score,JFS)进行面瘫评估,使用拉力测量器测量双侧眼轮匝肌的闭目力量差值.比较中枢性面瘫者伴与不伴闭目乏力两组的临床资料.结果 共收集病例914例,中枢性面瘫者伴闭目乏力且头颅MRI显示脑干无病灶者共40例,发生率为4.4%.脑卒中后中枢性面瘫伴闭目乏力者的双眼闭目力量差值随时间延长而递减(F=36.049,P＜0.01),而不伴闭目乏力者双眼闭目力量无差异.伴闭目乏力者的责任病灶在右侧大脑半球的比例较不伴闭目乏力者高(72.50% vs 32.01%,χ2=32.95,P＜0.01).两组的责任病灶的性质、分布部位、体积、Alberta卒中计划早期CT评分、有双侧病灶的比例均无差异.责任病灶分布在右侧大脑半球、年龄、性别以及是否有脑干病变这四项因素作为Cox回归的协变量,对中枢性面瘫闭目乏力的持续时间均无影响.结论 脑卒中后中枢性面瘫伴闭目乏力的发生率达4.4%,其发生机制可能与右侧大脑半球受损有关。
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) | 0.001 | 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".