The clinical research of perioperative neurocognitive dysfunction in brain tumor patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the clinical characteristics of the perioperative cognitive dysfunction in brain tumor patients. Methods One hundred and forty cases of brain tumor patients were evaluated by using the Chinese vesion of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Questionnaire before and after surgery. The distribution and clinical features of cognitive dysfunction in different located lesions and pathological types were analyzed and compared. Results Among the 140 brain tumor patients, the preoperative cognitive impairment and prevalence rate were 59.2%, the score was 24.2±2.4.The postoperative cognitive impairment and prevalence rate were 80.7%, the score was 20.5±4.1.The postoperative cognitive dysfunction prevalence was significantly higher than the preoperative in benign and malignant with infra or supratentorial brain tumor patients(80.0% vs 98.3%, 71.8% vs 92.2%, all P<0.05). Conclusions Vary different extent cognitive impairment was found in brain tumor patients in preoperative period. The postoperative cognitive dysfunction was seriously worse than that in the preoperative period in malignant and supratentorial brain tumors in earlier recovery period. Key words: Brain neoplasms; Cognitive disorders; Perioperative period
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".