Cognitive impairment and related risk factors in systemic lupus erythematosus patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
目的 研究系统性红斑狼疮(systemic lupus erythematosus,SLE)患者认知功能障碍(cognitive impairment,CI)的情况及其相关危险因素.方法 2018年6月至2019年1月纳入SLE患者47例,健康对照组24例.用简易智能量表评分(mini-mental state examination,MMSE)、蒙特利尔认知量表评分(montreal cognitive assessment,MoCA)以及词语学习测验(hopkins verbal learning test,HVLT)、词语流畅性测验(verbal fluency test,VFT)、数字广度测验(digit span test,DST)、符号数字模式测验(symbol digit modalities test,SDMT)、连线测验(trail making test,TMT)和Stroop色词测验(stroop color-word test,SCWT)进行知功能评估;结合临床和实验室资料分析SLE患者认知功能障碍的危险因素.结果 SLE组和正常对照在MMSE评分[29(28,30)vs.30(29,30)]、MoCA评分(25.4±3.7 vs.28.2±1.2)以及HVLT(三试:21.7±6.1 vs.25.7±2.6;延迟回忆:7.3±2.5 vs.9.8±1.8)、SDMT(41.7±14.4 vs.56.3±9.9)、SCWT时间(A:27.0±8.0 vs.23.1±2.8;B:37.0±17.2 vs.30.0±3.4;C:72.6±26.7 vs.52.5±8.5)中与正常对照存在统计学差异(P<0.05);SLE患者中CI者(29/47,61.7％)与无CI者(18/47,38.3％)在年龄、病程、疾病活动度以及血清学抗体检查方面无统计学差异,但神经精神狼疮(neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus,NPSLE)的比例高于无CI者(44.8％vs.16.7％,P=0.046).结论 SLE患者易出现CI,在记忆、注意力、心理运动速率及执行功能方面更为突出,精神神经狼疮是SLE患者CI的危险因素.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".