Assessment of the Willis circle flow changes and the severity of degenerative aortic stenosis and cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Degenerative aortic stenosis (DAS) and cognitive function deterioration frequently coexist in elderly patients, which affects the prognosis. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the Willis circle intracranial blood flow parameters and cognitive status in patients with DAS. METHODS: Ultrasonography of the Willis circle and the assessment of cerebral blood flow (CBF) volume, acceleration time (AT), pulsatile and resistive indexes (PI, RI), as well as cognition tests (Mini‑Mental Status Examination [MMSE] and Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]) were performed in group 1-41 patients with severe DAS (aortic valve area indexed to the body surface area [AVAi] <0.5 cm2/m2) and group 2-41 patients with moderate DAS (AVAi [range], 0.51-0.99 cm2/m2). The control group comprised 52 patients without DAS. RESULTS: Compared with controls, mean (SD) CBF volume ingroups 1 and 2 was lower (1.37 [0.32] l/min vs 1.5 [0.44] l/min vs 1.71 [0.21] l/min, respectively; P <0.001), while AT (212 [20] ms vs 161 [33] ms vs 86 [21] ms, respectively; P <0.001), RI (0.64 [0.07] vs 0.65 [0.06] vs 0.59 [0.05], respectively; P <0.001), and PI (1.13 [0.21] vs 1.16 [0.17] vs 0.99 [0.12]; P <0.001) were higher. Both MMSE and MoCA scores did not differ according to CBF, RI, PI, and AT. In multivariable regression analysis, age, renal failure, left ventricular ejection fraction, and diabetes, yet not CBF parameters, were independently associated with cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DAS had significantly reduced CBF volume and increased arterial stiffness. However, cognitive impairment may be attributed to concomitant comorbidities rather than CBF parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".