Influence of carotid endarterectomy in cognitive functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the influence of carotid endarterectomy in cognitive functions of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods Forty-three patients admitted to our hospital and performed carotid endarterectomy from February 2013 to August 2014, were enrolled in the study. Cognitive functions of the patients were evaluated by Montreal cognitive function assessment (MoCA) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) by cerebral perfusion CT scan three days before and three months after operation, respectively. According to the MoCA scores after operation, the patients were divided into significant improvement group and non-significant improvement group, and their cerebral hemodynamics indexes were compared. Results (1) As compared with those before operation (24.1±2.2, 0.97±0.08), the MoCA scores (26.02±2.9) and relative cerebral blood volumes (rCBV, 1.00±0.08) three months after operation were significantly different (P 0.05). Conclusion Carotid endarterectomy may help to improve the cognitive function in those patients with symtompatic carotid stenosis, and the effect might be associated with the improvement of cerebral perfusion. Key words: Carotid endarterectomy; Carotid stenosis; Cognitive function
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".