Study on the correlation between cerebral hemodynamics and cognitive function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the characteristics of cerebral hemodynamics and its correlation with cognitive function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods Two hundred outpatients with COPD and 200 sex-and age-matched outpatients over the same period were used as a control group.Monteal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used to evaluate the cognitive function.The mean flow velocity (Vm), pulsatility index (PI), resistance index (RI) and breath holding index (BHI) of bilateral middle cerebral artery (MCA) were examined by means of transcranial Doppler ultrasound in all subjects. Results The score of COPD group significantly was lower than that in control group [(22.95±3.71) scores vs (26.12±0.90) scores], the frequency of MoCA≤25 group was 21.5% in COPD group, significantly higher than that in control group (9.0%). Compared with control group, Vm [(53.31±0.96) cm/s vs (46.80±0.83) cm/s], BHI(1.21±0.72 vs 0.72±0.12) significantly decreased, and PI (0.83±0.04 vs 1.14±0.59), RI(0.52±0.04 vs 0.66±0.41) significantly increased in MoCA≤25 COPD group.Compared with MoCA>25 COPD group, BHI (0.98±0.91 vs 0.72±0.12) of MoCA≤25 COPD group significantly decreased, and PI (1.10±0.41 vs 1.14±0.59), RI (0.55±0.79 vs 0.66±0.41) significantly increased. Conclusions Cognitive function and cerebral hemodynamics in patients with COPD are impaired.PI has a positive correlation with the likelihood of cognitive impairment, howere, BHI has the opposite relationship. Key words: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Hemodynamics; Cognition impariment; Transcranial Doppler
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".