Evaluation of scenario-based storytelling therapyas an intervention for cognitive impairment after ischemic stroke
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore and evaluate the scenario-based storytelling therapy as an intervention on cognitive impairment after ischemic stroke. Methods Totally 64 patients with cognitive impairment after acute ischemic stroke were randomly divided into control group (n=31, and 1 case lost to follow-up) and intervention group (n=32 ) , the patients in the two groups were treated with basic treatment such as hypertension management, blood lipid regulation and healthy lifestyle intervention. The control group was given routine nursing and routine cognitive function training, and the intervention group was scenario-based storytelling therapy. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale(HAM-A) score and the effective rate of intervention were compared between the two groups. Results The effective rate of the intervention group was 87. 50%(28/32) , which was higher than35. 48%(11/31) in the control group(P＜0. 05). After intervention, scores of MMSE and MoCA increased and HAM-A score decreased in two groups, and patients in the intervention group achieved better improvement in MMSE, MoCA and HAM-A compared with those in the control group(P＜0. 05). Conclusion The scenario-based storytelling therapy is potentially effective to improve the cognitive function of patients with cognitive impairment after ischemic stroke and relieve their anxiety status.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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 it