RETRACTED: Characteristics of cognitive function in patients with cerebellar infarction and its association with lesion location
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the characteristics of cognitive function in patients with cerebellar infarction and its association with lesion location. Methods: Forty-five patients with isolated cerebellar infarction were collected in the Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital. Thirty healthy controls were recruited matched by age and education. Global cognitive function was evaluated by using Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination version III (ACE-III). An extensive neuropsychological assessment battery was also tested to evaluate the characteristics of each cognitive domain. 3D slicer software was used to draw the lesion, and evaluate the lesions’ volume, side, and location. Group analysis was used to compare the differences in cognitive performance between patients and healthy controls, and patients with left and right cerebellar hemisphere infarction. Spearman analysis was used to explore the correlation between cognitive function and lesion volume. We also subdivided each patient’s lesions according to the cerebellar atlas to identify the specific cerebellar location related to cognitive decline. Results: Patients with cerebellar infarction had a lower ACE-III score compared with the healthy group (87.9 ± 6.2 vs. 93.7 ± 2.9, p < 0.001), and 22 (48.9%) patients were diagnosed with cognitive impairment. The z-transformed score of attention and executive function in the patients’ group was −0.9 ± 1.4 and −0.8 ± 1.0 respectively, with 19 (43.2%) and 23 (56.4%) patients impaired. Compared with healthy controls, the relative risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) for impairment in attention and executive function were 3.24 (1.22–8.57) and 3.39 (1.45–7.89). However, only 10 (22.1%) patients showed impairment in more than two cognitive domains. Compared with the left lesion group, patients with right cerebellar infarction showed significantly impaired executive function (−1.1 ± 0.3 vs. −0.5 ± 0.2, p = 0.01). And the cerebellar posterior lobe regions, especially lobules VI, VIII, and IX, were explored to have lower cognitive performance. Furthermore, lesion volume was identified to be associated with the ACE-III score (r = −0.37, p = 0.04). Conclusion: We identified that cerebellar involvement in cognition, especially in attention processing and executive function. Cerebellar right-sided lateralization of cognition and functional topography were also revealed in the current study.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".