Visuoperceptual deficits and participation in older adults after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Visuoperceptual deficits frequently occur after a stroke, but little is known about how they evolve over time. These deficits may have an impact on participation in daily activities and social roles. The aims were to (i) track changes over six months in the visual perception of older adults with persistent visuoperceptual deficits after a stroke; (ii) examine if these changes differed between participants who had and had not received rehabilitation services; and (iii) verify if participation differed between participants with and without visuoperceptual deficits. METHODS: Visual perception as well as participation of 189 older adults who had had a stroke were evaluated in the first month (T1) after being discharged home from an acute care hospital (NO REHAB group) or rehabilitation unit (REHAB group). For visual perception, only participants presenting deficits at T1 were re-evaluated at three months (T2; n = 93), and those with deficits at T2 were re-evaluated at six months (T3; n = 61). RESULTS: A total of 57 people (30.2%) had visuoperceptual deficits six months after discharge home. Despite persistent deficits, approximately 45% of the participants in the two groups improved whereas 50% of the NO REHAB group and 24.3% of the REHAB group deteriorated. Changes in the mean scores on the MVPT-V were similar in the two groups. Participation, and especially participation in social roles, was more restricted in participants with visuoperceptual deficits (P < 0.001), independent of the severity of the stroke. CONCLUSION: Visuoperceptual deficits are common post-stroke. However, they evolve differently in different people and are associated with a reduction in participation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".