Establishment and evaluation of a clinical prediction model for cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral small vessel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are currently no effective prediction methods for evaluating the occurrence of cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD). AIMS: To investigate the risk factors for cognitive dysfunction in patients with CSVD and to construct a risk prediction model. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 227 patients with CSVD. All patients were assessed by brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to assess cognitive status. In addition, the patient's medical records were also recorded. The clinical data were divided into a normal cognitive function group and a cognitive impairment group. A MoCA score < 26 (an additional 1 point for education < 12 years) is defined as cognitive dysfunction. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients (mean age 66.7 ± 6.99 years) with CSVD were included in this study, of whom 68.7% were male and 100 patients (44.1%) developed cognitive impairment. Age (OR = 1.070; 95% CI = 1.015 ~ 1.128, p < 0.05), hypertension (OR = 2.863; 95% CI = 1.438 ~ 5.699, p < 0.05), homocysteine(HCY) (OR = 1.065; 95% CI = 1.005 ~ 1.127, p < 0.05), lacunar infarct score(Lac_score) (OR = 2.732; 95% CI = 1.094 ~ 6.825, P < 0.05), and CSVD total burden (CSVD_score) (OR = 3.823; 95% CI = 1.496 ~ 9.768, P < 0.05) were found to be independent risk factors for cognitive decline in the present study. The above 5 variables were used to construct a nomogram, and the model was internally validated by using bootstrapping with a C-index of 0.839. The external model validation C-index was 0.867. CONCLUSIONS: The nomogram model based on brain MR images and clinical data helps in individualizing the probability of cognitive impairment progression in patients with CSVD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".