MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399902856 · doi:10.26855/ijcemr.2024.04.016

Clinical Efficacy of Damol Injection Combined with Nimodipine in Cerebral Small Vascular Cognitive Dysfunction

2024· article· en· W4399902856 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liyan Zhang, Wei Qin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNimodipineMedicineCognitionAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To analyze the clinical efficacy of ginkgo damol injection combined with nimodipine in treating cerebral small vascular cognitive dysfunction. Methods: 73 patients with cerebral microvascular cognitive dysfunction admitted to our hospital from June 2022 to October 2023 were selected, which were divided into an observation group and a control group according to the case grouping method, with 36 cases and 37 cases, respectively. The observation group was treated with Ginkgo damol injection combined with nimodipine, and the control group compared the mental status (Brief Mental State Examination Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, MMSE) and cognitive condition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA). Results: After treatment, mental status and cognitive status in both groups improved, while the observation group showed a more significant improvement trend, with statistically significant significance (P <0.05). Conclusion: Combined with nimodipine treatment can effectively improve their clinical efficacy and improve their cognitive status and mental state, which is worth promoting

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine ResearchSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207