MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097711148 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0642

Depression in acute stroke

2006· article· en· W2097711148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lara Caeiro, José M. Ferro, Catarina O. Santos, Maria Luísa Figueira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Stroke (engine)MedicineAcute strokePsychiatryEconomicsEngineeringKeynesian economicsEmergency department

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Depression is one of the most frequent neuropsychiatric disturbances in stroke patients. The clinical aspects and correlations of depression in the first days after acute stroke are less known. This study aimed to 1) assess the frequency of depression, 2) describe the profile of depression of stroke patients and 3) analyze the relation between depression and demographic, predisposing and precipitating conditions, and clinical and imaging data, in acute stroke patients. METHODS: We used the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale to assess depression in 178 consecutive acute (<or= 4 days) stroke (26 subarachnoid hemorrhage, 31 intracerebral hemorrhage, 121 cerebral infarct) patients (mean age 57 yr) and in a control group of 50 acute coronary patients (mean age 59 yr). RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (46%) presented acute depression; apathy/loss of interest was the most frequent clinical feature. In logistic regression, the best model to predict depression (backward model) identified previous mood disorder (odds ratio 2.2-12.9) as an independent predictor. There were no significant differences in the frequency or severity (p > 0.45) of depression between control subjects and acute stroke patients. CONCLUSIONS: Depression was present in almost one-half of the acute stroke patients and was related to previous mood disorder but not not to stroke type or location. Apathy/loss of interest was the predominant clinical feature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207