A clinical comparison between cognitive rehabilitation training and Aricept for treating dementia in patients with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the curative effects of cognitive rehabilitation training and oral administration of Aricept on dementia associated with Parkinson's disease (PD).Methods Fifty patients with Parkinson's disease and mild to moderate dementia were divided into an experimental group (24 cases) and a control group (26 cases).The experimental group was given cognition training while the control group was given oral Aricept (5 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by 10mg daily for 8 weeks).The cognitive function of the two groups was evaluated using the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) before treatment and at the end of the 4th,8th and 12th week of treatment.The severity of the patients' PD was assessed with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS).Results After 4,8 and 12 weeks of treatment,the average MoCA score of the experimental group had significantly improved compared with before treatment.The average MoCA score of the control group was significantly improved after 8 and 12 weeks.After 4 weeks of treatment the average MoCA score of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group.After 4 weeks of training,the average spirit,behavior and emotion scores of the experimental group in the UPDRS were significantly higher than before treatment and also significantly higher than the control group's average scores.The motor scores showed no significant difference until after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment.Conclusion Both cognition training and Aricept can alleviate dementia associated with PD,but the former works faster and has no adverse effect on movement. Key words: Parkinson's disease; Dementia; Cognition; Rehabilitation; Aricept
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".