MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monosialotetrahexosy lganglioside for vascular cognitive impsirment: an efficacy observation

2011· article· en· W3032641554 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhonglin Liu, Limin Wang, Jun Liu, Songhua Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueInt J Cerebrovasc Dis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCognitive impairmentMontreal Cognitive AssessmentTreatment and control groupsAdverse effectClinical efficacyCognitionInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To observe the efficacy of monosialotetrahexosyl~ngtioside (GM1) in the treatment of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI). Methods Sixty patients with VCI were randomly divided into either a treatment group or a control group. The patients in the control group received conventional treatment and those in the treatment control group were treated with conventional treatment plus continuous intravenous infusion of GM1 (80 mg/d) for 2 weeks. The efficacy was evaluated by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) before and after the treatment, and the safety of the treatment was observed. Results After 2 weeks of treatment, the MoCA scores were significantly higher than those before treatment in both groups (all P 〈0. 05). The MoCA scores of the treatment group were si~aificantly higher than those of the control goup (20. 82 ± 1.96 vs. 19. 61 ±2. 02, t=2. 315, P =0. 023). No obvious adverse reactions were found. Conclusions The efficacy of GM1 is positive in the treatment of vascular cognitive impairment, and there is no obvious adverse reactions. It is worthy of using widely in clinical practice. Key words: Cogaition disorders;  Cerebrovascular disorders;  Gangliosides

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInt J Cerebrovasc DisSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207