Cognitive impairment six months after ischaemic stroke: a profile from the ASPIRE-S study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment commonly occurs in the acute phase post-stroke, but may persist with over half of all stroke survivors experiencing some form of long-term cognitive deficit. Recent evidence suggests that optimising secondary prevention adherence is a critical factor in preventing recurrent stroke and the incidence of stroke-related cognitive impairment and dementia. The aim of this study was to profile cognitive impairment of stroke survivors at six months, and to identify factors associated with cognitive impairment post-stroke, focusing on indicators of adequate secondary prevention and psychological function. METHODS: Participants were assessed at six months following an ischaemic stroke as part of the Action on Secondary Prevention Interventions and Rehabilitation in Stroke study (ASPIRE-S), which examined the secondary preventive and rehabilitative profile of patients in the community post-stroke. Cognitive impairment was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-six stroke patients were assessed at six months. Over half of the sample (56.6%) were found to have cognitive impairment, with significant associations between cognitive impairment and female sex (odds ratio (OR) = 1.6, 95% CI 1.01-2.57) and history of cerebrovascular disease (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.38-3.59). Treatment with antihypertensive medications (OR = .65, 95% CI .44-.96) and prescription of anticoagulant therapy (OR = .41, 95% CI .26-.68) were associated with reduced likelihood of cognitive impairment, however increasing number of total prescribed medications was moderately associated with poorer cognitive impairment (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal levels of cognitive impairment at 6 months post-stroke that are concerning. Encouragingly, aspects of secondary prevention were identified that may be protective in reducing the incidence of cognitive impairment post-stroke. Neuropsychological rehabilitation post-stroke is also required as part of stroke rehabilitation models to meet the burden of post-stroke cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".