Efficacy and safety of donepezil on cognitive impairment of delayed encephalophthy after carbon monoxide poisoming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil in the treatment of cognitive impairment of delayed encephalopathy after carbon monoxide poisoming (DEACMP). Methods From March 2004 to September 2015, 80 patients with cognitive impairment of DEACMP were collected, and they were randomly divided into observation group and control group, with 40 cases in each group. The control group were treated with hyperbaric oxygen, hormone, prevention of brain edema, improve brain circulation, free radical scavenging, trophic nerve, rehabili-tation training and so on, the course of treatment was 6 weeks. The observation group on the basis of the control group received oral donepezil of 5 mg, once a day, the course of treatment was 6 weeks. The scores of Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA), mini-mental status examination(MMSE) before and after the treatment at 2, 4 and 6 weeks were compared. The safety evaluation were compared between the two groups on 90th d after treatment. Results The scores of MoCA and MMSE between the two groups before and after treatment were significantly different(P 0.05). Safety evaluation of 90th d after treatment had no significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05). Conclusions Comprehensive treatment can significantly improve the cognitive impairment of DEACMP, combined with donepezil in the treatment of the cognitive impairment of DEACMP has clinical efficacy and safety, the clinical effect of donepezil need to increase the sample size, multi center and the expansion of donepezil time for further study. Key words: Donepezil; Carbon monoxide poisoning; Delayed encephalopathy; Cognitive impairment
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".