Validez de la evaluación cognitiva de montreal en pacientes con lesion intracraneal traumatica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the evaluation of Montreal has prognostic validity for the presence of cognitive impairment in patients with traumatic intracranial injury Trujillo Regional Teaching Hospital. \nMATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed an observational, analytical, diagnostic test, which evaluated 132 patients divided into two groups: Group I = 106 TBI patients and Group II = 26 patients without TBI in the study period between December 2013 to January 2014. \nRESULTS: The mean age of patients was 35,51 ± 14,27 years in the group with TBI and 30,69 ± 12.93 years in patients without TBI; the proportion of male in patients with and without TBI were 66,98% and 65,38% respectively. In regard to the MoCA score was observed that the mean in TBI patients was 25,52 ± 2,20 and the mean was 28 ± 1.55 in patients without TBI; MoCA score to categorize and relate in function in the presence of TBI was seen that 55,66% of TBI patients had a MoCA < 26 score, compatible with cognitive impairment and in the patients without TBI there were only 11,54%. The performance of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), to predict cognitive impairment in TBI patients, a cutoff < 26, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 55,66%, 88,46%, 95,16% and 32,86% respectively. The area under the curve (through the ROC curve) was 0,82. \nCONCLUSIONS: The Montreal cognitive assessment had a diagnostic performance of 82% in predicting cognitive impairment in patients with TBI. \n \nKEYWORDS: Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Traumatic brain injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".