Cognitive complaints in the early phase after stroke are not indicative of cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic contribution of subjective information, obtained by a standardised checklist, to the identification of patients with cognitive impairment in the early phase after stroke. METHODS: The data were collected retrospectively by file analysis of both medical and psychological records of patients with a first-ever stroke who were discharged home from the stroke unit. All these patients underwent neuropsychological examination by protocol. Patients were included for data analyses if they completed the Checklist for Cognitive and Emotional consequences following stroke within 2 weeks after discharge. Data from a control group were used to classify patients into normal and cognitively impaired. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients was included in the study. Ninety percent reported at least one psychological problem hindering daily life and 74% of the total sample reported at least one hindering cognitive problem. The most reported cognitive complaints concerned attention (38%), mental speed (46%) and memory (38%). Cognitive impairment varied between 16 and 66% based on the specific neuropsychological task. Cognitive complaints appeared to be unrelated to cognitive impairment. Only the relationship between cognitive and emotional complaints was significant (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive complaints hindering daily life are frequently reported in the early weeks after stroke but are no indication for impaired cognitive performance. To identify patients with cognitive impairment, neuropsychological assessment is essential.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".