Cognitive Impairment Evaluated With Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization Standards in a Multicenter Prospective Stroke Cohort in Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since the Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization Standards (VCIHS) neuropsychological test protocol was proposed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Canadian Stroke Network, no studies have applied this neuropsychological protocol to poststroke survivors in a large-scale, multicenter stroke cohort. We determined the frequency of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) and investigated the feasibility of using the Korean version of the VCIHS neuropsychological protocol in a multicenter, hospital-based stroke cohort in Korea. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 620 subjects with ischemic stroke within 7 days of symptom onset among 899 patients who were consecutively admitted to 12 university hospitals in Korea. Neuropsychological assessments using the 60-minute Korean VCIHS neuropsychological protocol were administered at 3 months after stroke. RESULTS: Of the 620 patients, 506 were followed up at 3 months after stroke. Of these, 353 (69.8%) were evaluated for cognitive function using the 60-minute Korean VCIHS neuropsychological protocol. The frequency of VCI at 3 months was 62.6%: VCI with no dementia in 49.9% and vascular dementia in 12.7%. Old age (P=0.014), poor functional outcomes at 3 months (P=0.029), and stroke subtypes other than small vessel disease (P=0.004) were independent risk factors of VCI. CONCLUSIONS: VCI, evaluated using the Korean VCIHS neuropsychological protocol, is substantial at 3 months after ischemic stroke in Korea. The use of the 60-minute Korean VCIHS neuropsychological protocol was feasible in large-scale multicenter studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".