MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LATERALIZATION OF VASCULAR COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS

2017· other· en· W6908358245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLibraries and Information Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLateralization of brain functionCognitionLesionStroke (engine)Cognitive impairmentDiseaseRight hemisphereNeuroimagingCerebral hemisphereFunctional imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.028
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1260.002

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.234 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)Same topicLibraries and Information ServicesFrench-language works237,207