MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rehabilitation of "Six Healing Sounds" on MCI of the old-aged persons

2013· article· en· W3032109431 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTraditional Chinese Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPhysical therapyAudiologySignificant differenceCognitive impairmentCognitionPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To observe the rehabilitation of Six Healing Sounds on MCI of the oldaged persons.Methods All patients were randomly divided into Six Healing Sounds exercise group and control group using random number table.MOCA,and MMSE were adopted for evaluating the efficacy of the subjects before and six months after the practice.Nerve-physiology information workstation was setup to record the changes of cerebral electric powder of both groups before and 6 months after the treatment.The data was further analyzed by intelligent cerebral powder analyzing system.Results ①After six months practice,total score of MOCA (25.18 ± 5.07) and MMSE (26.03 ± 2.63) increased significantly after the treatment in the exercise group,which showed significant difference than the control group [MOCA (22.83 ± 4.95) and MMSE (24.86± 2.98)].MOCA increased significantly in attention (5.04 ± 0.90),delay memory (3.02 ± 0.89),verbal(2.30±0.57) sub-item scores after the treatment in the exercise group,showed significant differences than the control group [attention (4.28 ± 1.08),delay memory (2.33 ± 0.95),verbal (2.13 ± 0.51)] ; MMSE also demonstrated a significant increase a in split-second memory(2.35 ±0.43),delay memory(2.42±0.48),verbal (8.49± 0.54) sub-item scores after the treatment in the exercise group,showed significant differences than the control group [split-second memory (2.15 ± 0.34),delay memory (2.14± 0.83),verba (8.13 ± 0.70)].②Frequency changes:the change of δ (0.0848± 0.0373) μ v 2 was decreased than before in the exercise group after 6 months; the change of α1 (0.3753± 0.1470) μ v2was increased than before in the exercise group after 6 months; the change ofδ and θ (0.2266±0.0953)μ v2 had significant difference after the treatment between the two group [control group:δ (0.1095 ± 0.0520) μ v2 θ (0.2589 ± 0.0862) μ v 2and α1 (0.3160 ±0.1540)μ v 2].③Space changes:in the ratio of (δ + θ) / (α1+α2+β1+β2):F4(0.5115±0.4262)、O 1 (0.3365 ± 0.2436)、O2 (0.3536± 0.2671)、T4 (0.4581 ± 0.3798)、T5 (0.3198± 0.3608)、Fp (10.8233 ±0.6857) 、Fp2 (0.7710± 0.6352)、C3 (0.3702 ± 0.3910)、C4 (0.3896 ± 0.3523)、P4 (0.3523 ± 0.2333)、T6 (0.2972± 0.4276)were decreased than before in the exercise group after 6 months; C3、C4、P4、T4、T5 、T6、Fpl had significant difference after the treatment between the two group[control group:C3 (0.5706±0.4944)、C4 (0.5780 ± 0.4996)、P4 (0.4835 ± 0.3641)、T4 (0.6294 ± 0.4186)、T5 (0.4882 ± 0.4000)、T6 (0.4879±0.4131)、Fp1 (1.0125±0.7476)].Conclusion Six Healing Sounds had rehabilitation effects on MCI of the old-aged persons. Key words: Six Healing Sounds;  MCI

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.261 · 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