MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of hippocampal protection technique on improvement of cognitive dysfunction in patients undergoing whole brain radiotherapy

2017· article· en· W3029818194 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jun Yang, Ying Wang, Wenling Guo, Xiaochun Wang, Shouyu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCentral Plains Medical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveHippocampal formationWhole brain radiotherapyMedicineHippocampusRadiation therapyCognitionSignificant differenceInternal medicineOncologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the effect of hippocampal protection on neurological cognitive dysfunction caused by whole brain radiotherapy. Methods A total of 98 patients received total brain radiotherapy, 60 patients in the protective hippocampus group and 38 patients in the conventional whole brain radiotherapy group. The difference of neurocognitive impairment in the two grups was assessed using the Montreal cognitive rating scale, and cognitive benefit of the protective hippocampus group was assessed using hippocampal protection techniques. Results There was no significant difference in baseline overall score between the hippocampal protection group and conventional whole-brain radiotherapy group, and the difference between the hippocampus protection group and the conventional whole brath group at 3, 6 and 12 months after radiotherapy was significant (P<0.05). Conclusions The hippocampal protection technique can reduce the cognitive dysfunction caused by whole brain radiotherapy and improve the quality of life of patients. Key words: Whole brain radiotherapy; Hippocampal protection; Cognitive function

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCentral Plains Medical JournalSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207