Detection of underlying dementia in bullous pemphigoid patients using cognitive evaluation tests: a multicenter case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Preliminary observation in clinical practice showed that subjective neurocognitive complaints are relatively common in bullous pemphigoid (BP) patients. Yet, little has been done to investigate the neurocognitive status in BP. Methods: This is a multicenter observational case-control study comprised of 61 BP patients and 65 matched control subjects from 3 medical centers in China from 2014 to 2019. To evaluate the cognitive function between BP patients and matched controls, all the subjects finished the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). Results: The overall scores were significantly lower in BP than in controls (PMoCA<0.001). The percentage of patients screened positive for cognitive impairment in the BP group was significantly higher than in the control group (PMMSE<0.001, PMoCA<0.001). On multivariate analysis, BP was associated with increased odds of cognitive impairment by MMSE and MoCA (PMMSE=0.017, PMoCA=0.007). Conclusions: BP patients had decreased cognitive abilities and were at a higher risk of cognitive impairment. The evaluation of cognitive impairment may be warranted for BP patients in clinical practice for early diagnosis and therapy of dementia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".