MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4367057814 · doi:10.23937/2572-3235.1510104

Outcome of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Technique on Vascular Cognitive Impairment (VCI): Meta-Analysis

2023· article· en· W4367057814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ratiaray Rabarijaona Tony Manjato, Xu Haibo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiology and Imaging Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineCognitive impairmentCognitionMeta-analysisPsychologyRadiologyNuclear magnetic resonanceInternal medicinePhysicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The significant justification for why vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) happens is because of cerebrovascular disease.If not recognized early, this will prompt vascular dementia.To have the option to analyze VCI the assessment procedure ought to be foremost, in order to assist with effective treatment strategy to forestall extra vascular harm.Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the scoring system used to assess VCI after magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique.Methods: A PRISMA selection protocol was used to identify neuroimaging studies across electronic database such as PubMed, Google scholar, Embase and web of science from May 13, 2011 to October 10, 2022.A total of 26 studies evaluating neuropsychological assessment such as Educational experience, Mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), Fazekas perivascular (PV) Score, Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD), Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA) and Activities daily living scale(ADL) for VCI after MRI method.Meta-analysis was performed by Rev-Man 5.4. Results:The meta-analysis included 26 MRI studies on VCI patients and control.The studies included a total number of 2,253 individuals, 1,192 were in the control group and 1,061 patients in VCI group.The cognitive function assessed by the meta-analysis revealed VCI with lesser MMSE scores (Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 6.75;Chi 2 = 879.81,df = 19 (P < 0.00001); I 2 = 98%) and MoCA scores (Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 12.76; Chi 2 = 736.56,df = 15 (P < 0.00001); I 2 = 98%) respectively.The analysis showed that, educational level is positively related with cognitive function in VCI patients (Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 39.68,df = 20 (P = 0.005); I 2 = 50%).The control group observed a lesser HAMA and Fazekas PV score compared to VCI.But there was no significant difference for HAMD and ADL between the two groups.Conclusion: Cognitive performance in subjects with VCI can be evaluated using neuropsychological scoring system following MRI technique.Furthermore, MMSE and MoCA scores following education increases positive cognitive function.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.063
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiology and Imaging Technology→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→