Differences in Participation According to Specific Cognitive Deficits Following a Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared participation following a stroke according to the presence of specific cognitive deficits. Participation is defined as the involvement of a person in daily activities and social roles. Three weeks after being discharged home, 197 older adults (aged 65 years and older) who had a stroke were evaluated using the Assessment of Life Habits, which includes 12 domains of daily activities and social roles. The presence of a cognitive deficit was determined by the scores obtained on tests assessing memory, visual perception, language, unilateral attention, and the inhibition component of executive functions. After adjusting for depressive symptoms, time since stroke, and comorbidities, five of the domains of participation are significantly more restricted by some cognitive deficits. Memory deficits affect the communication (p = .006) and leisure (p = .032) domains. In the presence of visual perception deficits, the nutrition (p = .019), communication (p = .004), and responsibilities (p < .0005) domains are more limited. Language deficits have an impact on several domains of participation, namely communication (p < .0005), responsibilities (p < .0005), community life (p = .001), and leisure (p = .021). Unilateral neglect and deficits in the inhibition component of executive functions are not found to restrict participation. Overall, participation after stroke is related to cognitive function. Looking carefully at individual domains of activities and roles provides essential information in guiding rehabilitation interventions aimed at enhancing participation after discharge.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".