Fatigue in vascular cognitive impairment no dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background patients with vascular cognitive impairment no dementia (VCI‐ND) may have different complains like sleep disturbancies, fatigue, pain. Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms of these patients. In advanced stages, fatigue is difficult to describe by the patients. Aim of the study: to assess the frequency and risk factors for fatigue in patients with VCI‐ND. Method this is a case‐control study, which involved 23 people with VCI‐ND and 23 sex and aged matched controls (with no dementia). A comprehensive neurological assessment in both groups were performed; adittionally we used Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) Result fatigue was described by 7 patients (30.43%) in the study group compared with 2 patients (8.69%) in controls (p<0.05). In the study group, when patients with fatigue were compared with those with no fatigue, the first group had higher Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Rating Scale score and higher Epworth Sleepiness Scale score. Conclusion this study suggest that fatigue is quite common among people with vascular cognitive impairment no dementia. Anxiety, depression, excessive daytime sleepiness were independently associated with fatigue.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".