Background: NLP models like ChatGPT promise to revolutionize text-based content delivery, particularly in medicine. Yet, doubts remain about ChatGPT's ability to reliably support evaluations of cognitive performance, warranting further investigation into its accuracy and comprehensiveness in this area. Method: A cohort of 60 cognitively normal individuals and 30 stroke survivors underwent a comprehensive evaluation, covering memory, numerical processing, verbal fluency, and abstract thinking. Healthcare professionals and NLP models GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 conducted evaluations following established standards. Scores were compared, and efforts were made to refine scoring protocols and interaction methods to enhance ChatGPT's potential in these evaluations. Result: Within the cohort of healthy participants, the utilization of GPT-3.5 revealed significant disparities in memory evaluation compared to both physician-led assessments and those conducted utilizing GPT-4 ( P < 0.001). Furthermore, within the domain of memory evaluation, GPT-3.5 exhibited discrepancies in 8 out of 21 specific measures when compared to assessments conducted by physicians ( P < 0.05). Additionally, GPT-3.5 demonstrated statistically significant deviations from physician assessments in speech evaluation ( P = 0.009). Among participants with a history of stroke, GPT-3.5 exhibited differences solely in verbal assessment compared to physician-led evaluations ( P = 0.002). Notably, through the implementation of optimized scoring methodologies and refinement of interaction protocols, partial mitigation of these disparities was achieved. Conclusion: ChatGPT can produce evaluation outcomes comparable to traditional methods. Despite differences from physician evaluations, refinement of scoring algorithms and interaction protocols has improved alignment. ChatGPT performs well even in populations with specific conditions like stroke, suggesting its versatility. GPT-4 yields results closer to physician ratings, indicating potential for further enhancement. These findings highlight ChatGPT's importance as a supplementary tool, offering new avenues for information gathering in medical fields and guiding its ongoing development and application.

The Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination (SLUMS) has been shown to be useful in the cognitive assessment in older adults and patients with dementia. The aim of this study was to preliminarily explore the effectiveness of the Chinese version of the SLUMS in the detection of cognitive impairment in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to provide an objective basis for its clinical application in China. In this cross-sectional study, 42 patients with TBI and 30 matched normal controls were administered. Participants were assessed by the Chinese version of the Mini-Mental State Assessment scale (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA) and SLUMS. Results showed that the Chinese version of the SLUMS had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient: 0.723), excellent interrater reliability (ICC: 0.990–0.998) and intrarater reliability (ICC: 0.968), as well as good validity. In the TBI group, the total SLUMS score was moderately positively correlated with the MMSE score (r = 0.702, p = .000) and highly positively correlated with the MoCA score (r = 0.831, p = .000). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of the SLUMS, MMSE and MoCA were 0.872, 0.756 and 0.916, respectively. The optimal cutoff score of 22.5 or fewer points are suggested for the SLUMS to discriminate cognitive impairment, with a sensitivity of 0.844 and a specificity of 0.825. The Chinese version of the SLUMS has excellent reliability and validity, and can be used as a screening tool for cognitive impairment of patients with TBI in China.

Objective and accurate cognitive assessment scales are essential for guiding cognitive rehabilitation following stroke. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Mandarin Chinese version of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC) in stroke patients. The English version of the BASIC scale was translated into Mandarin Chinese, and 56 stroke patients at a stroke treatment center were enrolled in the study. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and BASIC scale were used to evaluate the patients’ cognitive function, and content validity, structural validity, concurrent validity, internal consistency, interrater consistency and reliability and test-retest reliability were used to evaluate the test results. The correlation coefficients between each item of the BASIC scale and the total score were between 0.416 and 0.804 (p < 0.05). The total score on the BASIC scale was correlated with the total score on the MMSE (r = 0.479, p < 0.05). Four factors were extracted by exploratory factor analysis, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 74.932%. The factor loading of each item on the corresponding factor was > 0.5, indicating that the scale has good structural validity. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.821), as were interrater (ICC > 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.815–0.941). Therefore, the Chinese version of the BASIC scale has good reliability and validity and can assist in screening for cognitive dysfunction or dementia in stroke patients.

Background: Cisplatin (DDP) is a highly effective chemotherapeutic agent to most solid tumors including gastric cancer (GC), however, its clinical value is limited due to severe toxic side effects and secondary drug resistance. JP3, a JWA protein based MMP2-targeted polypeptide, known to inhibit the growth of GC in vivo. However, the bidirectional effects of JP3 in DDP-resistant GC and normal cells have not been demonstrated. The present study aims to investigate the actions of JP3 on protecting normal cells from the toxicity of DDP while enhancing its anti-tumor effects on GC cells.

Objective and accurate cognitive assessment scales are essential for guiding cognitive rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) for TBI and to verify the clinical application value. Fifty patients with TBI and 32 matched controls were assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and a newly developed Chinese version of RUDAS. These scales were then compared for internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, test‒retest reliability, content validity, construct validity, and diagnostic efficacy. Among the TBI group, the RUDAS demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.733), high inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] of 0.910‒0.999), and high test‒retest reliability (total score ICC = 0.938). The correlation coefficients between RUDAS total score and individual subscores were all > 0.5 except for body orientation (r = 0.363), indicating generally good content validity. Total RUDAS scores were moderately correlated with both MMSE total scores (r = 0.701, p < 0.001) and MoCA total scores (r = 0.778, p < 0.001), indicating good construct validity. Receiving operating characteristic curve analysis yielded comparable areas under the curve for diagnostic efficacy (RUDAS, 0.844; MMSE, 0.769; MoCA, 0.824; all p > 0.05). A RUDAS score cutoff of 23.5 distinguished TBI patients from controls with 60% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Therefore, the RUDAS demonstrates both good reliability and validity for evaluating cognitive impairments in TBI patients.