Frequency and correlates of subjective cognitive complaints and objective cognitive screening results in African American adults following COVID-19 infection
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Subjective cognitive complaints are frequent following COVID-19 infection, but assessment of whether these complaints map onto objective cognitive findings may not be routine in busy clinical settings. Consequently, opportunities to confirm these complaints and to provide follow-up referrals and appropriate care may be missed, thereby impacting patients' functional independence and quality of life. African Americans are vulnerable to poor outcomes from COVID-19, and thus represent a minority group in whom subjective concerns are especially important to investigate. Towards this end, we examined the frequency and correlates of subjective complaints and objective screening results of African American patients referred to the Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) Clinic at Grady Memorial Hospital, a large county teaching hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Methods: Eighty seven African American patients (mean age = 52.5, SD = 10.5, range = 30-73) were evaluated between January 28, 2021-October 14, 2021 in the Grady PASC clinic. They ranged from 1 to 17 months post positive SARS-COV-2 antigen testing. Patients were administered a subjective cognitive complaint questionnaire (PROMIS Cognitive Function Scale Short Form 8a) as well as cognitive screening measures including the Mini-Cog (3 item recall, clock) and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (timed visuomotor sequencing). Mood was assessed via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and anxiety via the Generalized Anxiety Disorders Scale. Published norms were used to identify clinically elevated scores. Results: Sixty six (76%) patients denied experiencing meaningful cognitive concerns, and of these, 25 (38%) had positive cognitive screens indicating impaired performance on objective testing. Of 21 patients with subjectively elevated cognitive concerns, 17 (81%) also had positive cognitive screens. There were no significant differences in sociodemographic factors (p values = .07-.71), days post-acute positive SARS-COV-2 Antigen Test (p = .99), disease severity (p values = .67-.75), or COVID-19 comorbidity indices (medical conditions (p values = .20-.77), substance abuse (p = .79), psychiatric history (p values = .11-.99) in those with or without subjective complaints and objective cognitive findings. However, patients with subjective complaints and objective cognitive findings reported more post-COVID-19 anxiety (p = .02) and depression (p = .001). Conclusions: Findings indicate a high concordance between subjective complaints on the PROMIS Cognitive Scale and objectively confirmed cognitive impairments in African Americans. Further, almost 40% who reported no cognitive complaints screened positive for cognitive impairment. Although depression and anxiety are associated with subjective complaints, they do not account for positive cognitive screening results, as those patients without depressive complaints also had similar rates of positive objective screens. The findings suggest that cognitive screening using assessment tools should be routinely performed in African Americans, especially those reporting cognitive symptoms on outcome scales. While future studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes, we highly recommend follow-ups in those with positive screens to characterize the specific domains that are impacted and that could affect activities of daily living and quality of life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».