MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Progress on the research of scales of preoperative evaluation for mild cognitive impairment

2017· article· en· W3030145456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yimeng Chen, Haiyun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGuoji mazuixue yu fusu zazhi · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionDementiaCognitive impairmentScale (ratio)Cognitive declineMedicineCognitive Assessment SystemPsychologyGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Mild cognitive impairment(MCI) is a syndrome defined as cognitive decline is ahead of expectation for an individual′s age and education level but that does not interfere notably with activities of daily life. MCI has a high risk of developing into dementia. Objective Preoperative evaluation for high-risk patients is conductive to the implementation of the precision anesthesia. In other words, with proper anesthetic medicine and method, the progression of MCI can be controlled or even delayed. Content The author comprehensively reviewed the screening scales of MCI home and abroad. Trend Although the application of Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA) on poorly educated patients has drawbacks, this screening scale is still the best single scale for preoperative evaluation so far. In addition, the application of the Montreal cognitive assessment-basic(MoCA-B) and Mini-mental status examination(MMSE) combined with other scales will provide new thoughts for accurate assessment of the cognitive function of the MCI patients. Key words: Mild cognitive impairment; Preoperative evaluation; Scale of 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueGuoji mazuixue yu fusu zazhiSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207