MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of cognitive rehabilitation training based on games on cognition of the traumatic brain injury patients

2013· article· en· W3032702663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
姚秋近, 张一, 陈超, 柏慧华, 王卉, 张峰极, 杨伊林

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œJournal of practical nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionRehabilitationCognitive trainingTraumatic brain injuryCognitive rehabilitation therapyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTest (biology)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To observe the effect of cognitive rehabilitation training based on games on cognition of the traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients.Methods 60 cases of patients according with the inclusion and exclusion criteria were divided into the control group and the training group with 30 cases in each group.The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) test scores of all patients were lower than 26 points.The training group accepted the cognitive rehabilitation training based on games such as exactly the same game,drum game and picture memory game,while the control group did not accept the training.After one month,all patients accepted the MoCA test again.Then we analyzed the differences of the cognition between the two groups.Results After 30 days of training,all items of the cognitive function increased except the sub-item of abstraction.While in the control group,only the scores of attention,delayed recall,orientation and the total score showed alleviation.And all the scores of the training group were higher than those of the control group except the sub-item of abstraction.Conclusions Cognitive rehabilitation training based on games can effectively improve the cognitive function of TBI patients. Key words: Traumatic brain injury;  Cognitive function;  Montreal cognitive assessment;  Cognitive rehabilitation training

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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 venue˜The œJournal of practical nursingSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207