Effect of hemodynamic suppression on cognitive function in patients after carotid artery stenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examines the impact of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on cognitive function in stroke patients, particularly in relation to hemodynamic depression (HD). METHODS: Patients undergoing CAS between January 1, 2019 and June 1, 2023 were included in our study. Depending on whether hemodynamic depression happened, they were separated into two groups: HD and non-HD. Prior to surgery, one month, three months, six months, and a year following surgery, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), and cognitive function scores were compared. RESULTS: 130 patients were included in the study, with an HD incidence rate of 51.54%. The comparison of MMSE and MoCA scores revealed that the HD group showed declining cognitive function post-surgery (P<0.05). Specifically, the MMSE and MoCA scores were significantly lower in the HD group compared to the non-HD group at 3, 6, and 12 months after CAS (P<0.05). Additionally, attention, computation, and memory were significantly lower in the HD group at these time points (P<0.05). The non-HD group demonstrated improvement in MMSE and MoCA scores compared to preoperative levels at 6- and 12-months post-surgery (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Following CAS, patients' cognitive ability would briefly drop before returning to baseline and improving even more. Clinical focus should be given to HD prevention because its presence would exacerbate the cognitive function impairment and lengthen the recovery period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".