MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361988181 · doi:10.47750/jptcp.2023.30.04.001

Cognitive Dysfunction in Ischemic versus Hemorrhagic stroke

2023· article· en· W4361988181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)CognitionIschemic strokeMedicineCardiologyPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryIschemiaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Stroke is one of the major causes of physical and mental disability among people.Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) represents a wide spectrum from mild cognitive impairment to dementia following cerebrovascular disorder that is resulting in either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.Purpose of study: This study was conducted to investigate the difference in cognitive functions' affection following ischemic versus hemorrhagic stroke.Subjects: 75 subjects were enrolled in this study, 25 healthy subjects and 50 stroke patient (25 ischemic and 25 hemorrhagic stroke patients) of both sexes with age range between 45 and 55 years old, duration of illness was between 6 to 12 months and years of education of patients and subjects participated in this study was at least nine years.The patients were selected from outpatient clinic, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Egypt.Subjects were classified into three groups: GA (25 healthy subjects), GB (25 ischemic stroke patients) and GC (25 hemorrhagic stroke patients).Methods: Both of healthy subjects and stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic) patients received cognitive assessment via Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MOCA) and Rehacom system as four categories were assessed which are figural memory, attention concentration, reaction behavior and logical thinking; each category was assessed for 30min.Results: This study results showed that there was a significant difference between the results of MOCA scale and Rehacom system among the three groups , with (P ≤ 0.05).Also, there was a significant difference between GB (ischemic stroke) and GC (hemorrhagic stroke).Conclusion: on the basis of the present data , it can be concluded that healthy subjects have better preserved cognitive functions in comparison with stroke patients (either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke) , based on MOCA scale results , deterioration in cognitive functions in hemorrhagic stroke was greater than in ischemic stroke , based on Rehacom System results , figural memory and logical thinking were more affected in patients with hemorrhagic stroke in comparison with ischemic stroke patients and reaction behavior and attention concentration were more affected in patients with ischemic stroke in comparison with haemorrhagic stroke patients .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207