Multicenter study on the treatment of cerebralcare granule for patients with mild and moderate vascular cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the improvement of cognitive impairment in patients with mild and moderate vascular cognitive impairment(VCI) treated with cerebralcare granule (CG) and basic treatment. Methods From October in 2014 to December in 2016 year, 143 cases of VCI patients were admitted from six hospitals in some areas of Hebei Province as the research objects, and divided into CG treatment group (experimental group, n=98) and conventional treatment group (control group, n=66). Three months and six months after treatment, the score of mental state examination (MMSE), the Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA) and the daily living capacity scale(ADL) of the two groups were compared after 3 and 6 moths of treatment. Results ①The total score of MMSE in the experimental group was higher than that of the control group for six months after treatment, and the difference was statistically significant ((23.76±4.02) vs (21.52±5.13), P 0.05). Conclusion CG can improve cognitive function in mild to moderate VCI patients, mainly in visual space/execution function, calculation ability and orientation ability, and with the extension of treatment time, the curative effect is more obvious. Key words: Cerebralcare granule; Vascular cognitive impairment; MMSE; MoCA
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".