Correlation between the degree of cognitive impairment and emotional state in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the correlation between cogni-tive dysfunction and emotional state in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and then propose intervention strategies. One hundred twenty-five patients with Alzheimer’s disease from June 2019 to May 2022 were selected as the study subjects and divided into two groups based on the degree of cognitive impair-ment, both receiving routine drug treatment and cognitive rehabilitation in-tervention. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) were used to evaluate the cognitive function and emotional status of two groups of patients before the intervention and four and eight weeks of intervention and to analyze the correlations between the two. The results showed statistically significant differences between the two groups MoCA and PANAS scores (P<0.05). Before the intervention, the patient’s MoCA score was positively correlated with the PANAS positive emo-tion score and negatively correlated with the PANAS negative emotion score (P<0.05). After four and eight weeks of intervention, the patient’s MoCA score was positively correlated with the PANAS positive emotion score (P<0.05) and negatively correlated with the PANAS negative emotion score (P<0.05).
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) | 0.001 | 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".