Training of cognitive functions in patients after cerebrovascular accident
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) represent an important health problem and training of cognitive functions after CVA is an important part of the rehabilitation process. The main objective of this bachelor thesis was the development and evaluation of a cognitive training program for adult patients after CVA using published literature. The main working hypothesis was that the program improves cognitive function both objectively and subjectively. The program's frequency was three times a week with an intensity of 30 minutes and duration of four weeks. In addition, it included independent practice sessions on weekends. Objective evaluation was performed using four short cognitive assessments ("Pětičárový test obrazcové produkce" [ČAPR], "Pětibodový test obrazcové produkce" [BOPR], Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA], Saint Louis University Mental Status [SLUMS]). Subjective evaluation was performed by the patient using three questionnaires for memory, thinking ability and executive functions. Using specific criteria, two patients were recruited to complete the program and evaluation upon entering and leaving the program. After completion, ČAPR, BOPR and SLUMS scores improved in both patients. However, MoCA scores and subjective evaluation of cognitive function did not change. The main result of this...
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".