MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977540288 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3602990

Efficacy and safety assessment of acupuncture and nimodipine to treat mild cognitive impairment after cerebral infarction: a randomized controlled trial

2016· other· en· W6977540288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering and Materials Science Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNimodipineAcupunctureRandomized controlled trialCerebral infarctionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cerebral infarction frequently leads to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Prompt management of MCI can prevent vascular dementia and improve patient outcome. This single center randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture and nimodipine to treat post-cerebral infarction MCI. Methods A total of 126 Chinese patients with post-cerebral infarction MCI recruited from the First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine between April 2013 and June 2014 were randomized at 1:1: 1 ratio into nimodipine alone (30 mg/time and 3 times daily), acupuncture alone (30 min/time, 6 times/week), and nimodipine + acupuncture groups. The treatments were 3 months. Cognitive function was evaluated using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale at enrollment interview, at the end of 3-month therapy, and at the post-treatment 3-month follow-up. Results The per-protocol set included 39, 40, and 40 patients from nimodipine alone, acupuncture alone, and the combination group, respectively, was analyzed. Intra-group comparison revealed that MoCA score at the follow-up improved significantly by 15.8 ± 10.9, 20.9 ± 13.8 %, and 30.2 ± 19.7 % compared with the baseline MoCA for nimodipine alone, acupuncture alone, and the combination group, respectively. Inter-group comparison demonstrated that the combination therapy improved MoCA score (5.5 ± 2.2) at significantly higher extent than nimodipine alone (3.1 ± 1.8) and acupuncture alone (4.3 ± 2.3) at the follow-up (All P < 0.05), and significantly higher proportion of patients in acupuncture alone group (80 %) and the combination therapy group (90 %) than in nimodipine alone group (56.4 %) showed ≥12 % MoCA score improvement compared with the baseline MoCA (All P < 0.05). No adverse event was reported during the study. Conclusion Acupuncture may be used as an additional therapy to conventional pharmacological treatment to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients with post-cerebral infarction MCI. Trial registration The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ , Unique Identifier: ChiCTR-IOR-15007366 ). The date of registration is November 4, 2015.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicEngineering and Materials Science StudiesFrench-language works237,207