MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis on the influencing factors of cognitive dysfunction in asymptomatic patients with cerebral infarction and nursing

2013· article· en· W3032074242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lina Feng, Yumei Li, Qi-hong Hu, Yu-lan Hou, Yan D. Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsymptomaticCognitionMedicineCerebral infarctionStatistical significancePhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To analyze the influencing factors of cognitive dysfunction in asymptomatic patients with cerebral infarction.Targeted the health education and psychological care were done.Methods Among 3860 cases of healthy check-up from from June 2010 to December 2011,126 cases with positive results who were divided into observation group,another 126 healthy check up person were divided into control group.The Montreal cognitive assessment scale was used to assess the cognitive function.The patients with positive results were treated with nursing intervention.Results In the observation group blood pressure,blood sugar and blood fat were all higher than those in the control group,there was statistical significance P < 0.05.Cognitive total score,concentration,depending on the space/executive function,abstract thought and so on in the observation group significantly lower than those in the control group,the difference was significantly (P < 0.05).Conclusions Asymptomatic patients with cerebral infarction have cognitive dysfunction,mainly Visual space/executive function,attention and concentration,the abstract thinking and directional force. Key words: Asymptomatic cerebral infarction; Cognitive dysfunction; Multiple-factor analysis; Nursing

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of nursingSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207