Evaluation of cognitive impairment by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: prevalence, risk factors and correlations with 3 month outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identification of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) with cognitive impairment is important for patient management (medical treatment, cognitive rehabilitation and social arrangements). The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) is currently recommended over the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) by the U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorder, in the chronic post-stroke setting. We hypothesised that the MoCA has a better correlation with functional outcome at 3 months than the MMSE. METHODS: We carried out a prospective observational study in Hong Kong over a 2 year period, recruiting patients aged 21-75 years with aSAH admitted within 96 h of ictus. The assessments included the modified Rankin Scale, Lawton Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL), Short Form-36, MoCA and MMSE at 3 months after ictus. Analyses were carried out to compare MoCA with MMSE. RESULTS: 90 patients completed the 3 month assessments. Cognitive impairment (MoCA <26) was determined in 73% of patients at 3 months. Delayed cerebral infarction explained the 31-38% variance in cognitive outcomes (MMSE and MoCA) at 3 months. MoCA demonstrated good discrimination of favourable neurological and IADL outcomes similar to the MMSE in receiver operating characteristics curve analyses. CONCLUSIONS: MoCA defined cognitive impairment was common at 3 months after aSAH and MoCA correlated with functional outcomes similar, but not superior, to the MMSE. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov of the US National Institutes of Health (NCT01038193).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".