Predictors of early post ischemic stroke apathy and depression: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Apathy and depression are important neuropsychiatric disorders that can occur after a stroke but the etiology and risk factors are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for apathy and depression following a stroke. METHODS: Patients with an acute stroke who met the inclusion criteria were recruited from our hospital, and general information was recorded from patient charts. The Apathy Evaluation Scale, Clinician Version (AES-C) was used to evaluate these patients within 2 weeks after the stroke. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Mattis Dementia Rating Scale Initiation/Perseveration subset (MDRS I/P), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and Stroop Color-Word Association Test were employed to evaluate emotion, cognitive function and executive function. The patients were divided into two groups: the apathy group and the non-apathy group. We also divided the patients into two groups based on whether or not they had post-stroke depression. The clinical characteristics and scores on the MoCA, MMSE, HAMD and MDRS I/P were compared between the apathy and non-apathy groups as well as between patients with and without depression. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for apathy and depression following a stroke. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients with acute stroke were recruited. Of these, 25 (33.3%) developed apathy and 12 (16%) developed depression. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that a history of cerebrovascular disease (OR: 6.45, 95% CI: 1.48-28.05, P = 0.013), low HbA1c (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.12-0.81, P = 0.017) and a low MDRS I/P score (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.96, P = 0.010) were risk factors for post-stroke apathy. Additionally, multivariate logistic regression indicated that a low MDRS I/P (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97, P = 0.015) was associated with post-stroke depression. CONCLUSIONS: Three risk factors for post-stroke apathy were identified as a history of cerebrovascular disease, low HbA1c and lower MDRS I/P scores. A low MDRS I/P score was also identified as a risk factor for post-stroke depression. These results may be useful to clinicians in recognizing and treating apathy and depression in patients after a stroke.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".