LC : Differences in Cognitive Function between Alcoholic and Viral Liver Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) is a mild form of HE that is defined as an abnormality in cognitive function presenting abnormality in psychometric tests without clinical symptoms. Few data are available about cognitive function in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) who had no history of HE. Especially, since alcohol induces organic changes in the frontal cortex primarily involved in cognition, we can suppose that cognitive function and treatment may be different between alcoholic and viral LC. In this study, we evaluated the difference difference of cognitive function in 2 groups. Methods: From October 2011 to December 2012, 72 patients (virus: 30 and alcohol: 42) with LC (child-pugh score≤6) prospectively enrolled. Patients who presented previous HE or neurologic sign were excluded. We evaluated characteristics and neuropsychological tests including attention by digit-span forward/backward, language by Korean-Boston naming test, visuospatial function by Ray-complex figure test (RCFT) copy score, verbal memory by Seoul-verbal learning test, visual function by RCFT delayed recall, and frontal/executive function by controlled oral ward association test, Korean-color word Stroop test, and Korea-Mini mental status examination (K-MMSE). Results: The mean age of patients is 48.7±6.1 years. Between alcoholic and viral LC, there were no significant differences in education-period and laboratory findings except γGT (366±390 and 160±160 IU/L) and albumin (3.7±0.7 and 4.1±0.4 g/dL). In the neuropsychological tests, visuospatial functions by RCFT copy score (65.8±34.7 and 83.6±11.2), frontal/ executive function by Korean-color word Stroop test (35.2±34.8 and 67.3±34.7) and K-MMSE (recall [1.9±0.9 and 2.5±0.5] and total [25.9±3.3 and 28.1±1.5]) showed worse scores in patients with alcoholic LC. Other neuropsychological tests did not show difference. Conclusions: Visuospatial functions and frontal lobe/executive function is significantly impaired in patients with alcoholic LC compared with viral LC. As a result, in patients with alcoholic LC, tests and treatment for the prevention of MHE might be considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".