Cognitive Outcomes and Activity of Daily Living for Neurosurgical Patients with Intrinsic Brain Lesions: A 1-year Prevalence Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background No prevalence data on cognitive outcomes are available for general neurosurgical patients and few studies have assessed the correlation between common cognitive assessment tools of the occupational therapists and activity of daily living (ADL) at 1 year. Methods Consecutive neurosurgical patients with intrinsic brain lesions (brain tumours, traumatic intracerebral haematomas, spontaneous intracerebral haematomas, and cerebral arteriovenous malformations) were approached for consent to participate in the present study. Results At 1 year, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (mean ± standard deviation) was 20.4 (±8.6) and 42% of the patients had scores less than 22. The median number of the Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination domains below the cutoff values was 8 (interquartile range: 3.5–9.75). Conclusions The cognitive assessments–-the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Frontal Assessment Battery, and the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test–-showed satisfactory discriminating power for complete independence in instrumental ADL. Instrumental ADL was best correlated with the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".