An emergency nursing and monitoring procedure on cognitive impairment and neurological function recovery in patients with acute cerebral infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimization and standardization of emergency nursing and monitoring procedures are of great significance for thrombolytic treatment of acute cerebral infarction. OBJECTIVE: Studies on the emergency nursing and monitoring procedure on cognitive impairment and neurological function in patients with acute cerebral infarction are still limited. METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial and 134 patients with acute cerebral infarction were recruited. They were randomly arranged into the control group (n = 67) receiving normal nursing procedure and the intervention group (n = 67) receiving emergency nursing and monitoring procedure after pre-intervention assessment. The cognitive impairment, neurological function and levels of inflammatory biomarkers and neuron-specific enolase of the participants were evaluated and analyzed. RESULTS: Emergency nursing and monitoring procedure improved Mini-mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores of patients with cerebral infraction compared with the control group. It also improved the scores of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, activities of daily living scale, Fugl-Meyer scale in the participants. Emergency nursing and monitoring procedure led to significantly decreased neuron-specific enolase and inflammatory cytokines in the serum of the participants. CONCLUSION: Emergency nursing and monitoring procedure are beneficial for cognitive impairment and neurological function recovery in patients with acute cerebral infarction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".