Correlation of Bleeding Volume and Cognitive Function Impairment in Hemorrhage Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/aim: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a neurological emergency. When a traumatic brain injury occurs, there will be short-term and long-term effects that will affect the brain. This study was aimed to determine the correlation of bleeding volume and cognitive function impairment in hemorrhagic traumatic brain injury. Method: This study uses data collection methods in the form of interviews with samples which will later be presented in the form of analytical observational study. Consecutive data collection on TBI patients in poly and unit room medical neurosurgery at Sanglah Hospital from August – Oktober 2021. The questionnaire used to cognitive function impairment with Montreal Cognitive Assessment version Indonesia (MoCA-INA). Data analysis using SPSS Version 23 for windows. Results: A total of 42 subjects were divided into normal and decreased cognitive function The patients’ mean age was average 29 (17-49) years old, Man 62%, cases epidural hemorrhagic 50 %, subdural 38% and intracerebral 12%, and their mean Glasgow Coma Scale score at admission was 11.5 ± 1.7 and significant with OR = 0.1 (95% CI = (0.02-0.4; p = 0.003) were. Lesions were predominantly localized to the frontal (14 lesions) and temporal (10 lesions) lobes. Lobe lesion volume did not correlate with cognitive function. The volume bleeding average 10.43 (1-40) significant with p= 0.016 (OR 5.2 (95% CI (1.3-19.7). Conclusion: Bleeding volume in hemorrhagic TBI increased five times in volume > 10 mL and GCS 9-13 first times came emergency room significant increased 0.1 times decreased function cognitive. Keywords: sleep quality, non-vegetarian, diet, serotonin, vegetarian
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".