Benefit of Cognitive Stimulation Therapy in a Patient with Vascular Dementia: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a restoration therapy based on cognitive improvement of patients, by giving patients a variety of stimulation. This therapy is highly recommended for people with mild dementia from mild to moderate in either Alzheimer dementia or vascular dementia. Vascular dementia is a collection of symptoms of decreased cognitive abilities associated with the incidence of stroke. CASE REPORT: Reported a 76-year-old man, who had a bleeding stroke, in admission the patient were often angry, sleepless, and aphasic. After returning home the patient experienced impairment in memory, language, executive ability, mild to moderate degree of visuospatial and incapable to manage his daily activities, therefore in routine evaluation of the 3rd month, patient was diagnosed as Vascular cognitive impairment. On regular home visits until the 6th month after the stroke, it was reported that in the first 6 months had been received CST. However, in the 7th–9th month of CST because at the time of the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic, human interaction was severely restricted, so patient monitoring was carried out using Ina AD-8 through phone. An evaluation of the cognitive function by measuring the cognitive function of the patient was using the Indonesian version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-Ina), as well as using activity daily living and instrumental daily living activities to measure the patient’s independence function. After 6 months of CST, there were cognitive improvements and were seen in MoCA – Ina, Ina AD-8 followed by improved patient independence. CONCLUSION: Cognitive stimulation is the best intervention option in the treatment of mild to moderate vascular dementia. This case is one good example that shows the success of CST that has been observed for 9 months, not only on the cognitive component but also in terms of the ability to perform daily activities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".