Effect of remote ischemic conditioning combined with binaural beat music training in patients with cognitive dysfunction after cerebral infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the effect of remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) combined with binaural beat music (BBM) training in patients with cognitive dysfunction after cerebral infarction. Methods From June, 2024 to January, 2025, 200 patients with cognitive dysfunction after cerebral infarction in the Affiliated Hospital of North China University of Science and Technology were randomly divided into control group (n=50), RIC group (n=50), BBM group (n=50) and combined group (n=50). All the groups received standardized routine training, RIC group received RIC, BBM group received BBM, and the combined group received RIC+BBM, for 14 days. They were assessed with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL) at baseline, day 14, and day 90. Results Two cases in the control group, four in RIC group, three in BBM group and three in the combined group dropped out. For MoCA scores, the inter-group effect, intra-group effect and interaction effect were all significant (F＞13.463, P＜0.001). After intervention, on both day 14 and day 90, the score of MoCA was higher in each intervention group than in the control group (P＜0.05), and was higher in the combined group than in both BBM and RIC groups (P＜0.05); and on day 90, it was higher in RIC group than in BBM group (P＜0.05). For SS-QOL, the score increased with time in all the groups(χ2＞75.182, P＜0.001).After intervention,there was significant difference at each time point among four groups (H＞18.260, P＜0.001). On day 14 and day 90, the score of SS-QOL was higher in the combined group than in the control and BBM groups (|Z|＞3.149, P＜0.05); on day 90, the score was higher in RIC group than in the control group (|Z|=3.590, P＜0.05), and it was higher in the combined group than in RIC group (|Z|=3.186, P＜0.05). Conclusion RIC, BBM and their combination all improved cognitive function after cerebral infarction. RIC was superior to BBM, and the combined intervention yielded the greatest benefit. Both RIC and the combined intervention improved quality of life, with the combined approach being the most effective.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".