LATERALIZATION OF VASCULAR COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of post-lesion re-organisation of cognitive functions in cerebrovascular disease remains open. The aim of this study is to determine whether there is any connection between lesion lateralization and cognitive profile of stroke patients.205 patients (18-88 years old, 85 women) with cerebrovascular disease were assessed with the Russian version of Oxford Cognitive Screen (Rus-OCS) and Russian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Rus-MoCA). The scores on attention, memory, praxis, language and number processing domains have been obtained. Lesion lateralization was assessed by use of structural MRI scans from the Siemens Avanta 1,5 u0422 scanner.Patients with left hemisphere lesions showed lower scores on language and verbal subtasks whereas patients with right hemisphere lesions performed worse on a subtask on visuospatial functions. Analysis of the impairment ratios within each group confirmed these results. Patients with bilateral lesions demonstrated functional impairments typical of brain damage for either hemisphere but no isolated impairment to language or visuospatial processing. The results with lateralized deficits might help specialists with the selection of lesion-specific treatment methods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".