Changes of perioperative cognitive function and its effect on quality of life in laryngeal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have been published on the cognitive function and its relationship with quality of life (QoL) in patients with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) undergoing surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the association between changes in cognitive function perioperatively with QoL among patients with LSCC. METHODS: This was a prospective study. Eighty-eight cases with LSCC treated with radical surgery were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) and EORTC QLQ-C30. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 21.0 software. RESULTS: The MoCA scores were 24.78 ± 2.42 before surgery and 23.02 ± 3.06 after surgery (p < 0.001). Correspondingly, 39 patients (44.32%) had cognitive impairment before surgery, and 47 patients (53.41%) had cognitive impairment after surgery. Age (p = 0.003) and preoperative anxiety (p = 0.016) were independent factors related to preoperative cognitive dysfunction, while age (p = 0.023), postoperative anxiety (p = 0.041), operation mode (p = 0.05, p = 0.016 respectively) and preoperative MoCA score (p = 0.008) were associated with postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Patients with cognitive impairment postoperatively had poorer QOL in the score of the overall health function scale (p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: LSCC patients exhibit a high prevalence of cognitive dysfunction, which significantly associated with reduced overall QoL. Age, postoperative anxiety, operation mode, and preoperative MoCA score were significantly associated with postoperative cognitive dysfunction.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".