Effects of butylphthalide soft capsules on cognitive function and daily living ability in patients with Parkinson's disease dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effects of butylphthalide soft capsules on cognitive function and daily living ability in patients with Parkinson's disease dementia(PDD). Methods From January 2016 to January 2017, 90 patients with PDD in the First People's Hospital of Wenling were divided into control group and study group by random number table method, with 45 cases in each group.The patients in the two groups were treated with conventional symptomatic treatment, and the control group was treated with donepezil, the study group was treated with butylphthalide soft capsules on this basis.The treatment time was 12 weeks.The clinical efficacies of the two groups were compared.Before treatment and 12 weeks after treatment, the cognitive functions of patients were assessed by Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE), and the daily living abilities of patients were assessed by Barthel index scale. Results The total effective rate of the study group was 93.33%, which was higher than 75.56% of the control group (χ2=5.414, P 0.05). Conclusion Butylphthalide soft capsules can significantly improve the cognitive function and daily living ability of patients with PDD, which is suitable for clinical application and promotion. Key words: Parkinson disease; Dementia; Cognitive; Activitise of daily living; Butylphthalide soft capsules
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".