Long-Term Cognitive Impairment After First-Ever Ischemic Stroke in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Up to 14% of all ischemic strokes occur in young adults (<50 years). Poststroke cognitive performance is a decisive determinant of their quality of life. However, virtually no studies report on cognition after young stroke, especially not on the long term. This long-term perspective is important because young patients have a long life expectancy during which they start forming a family, have an active social life, and make decisive career moves. We aimed to evaluate the long-term cognitive outcome. METHODS: All consecutive patients between January 1, 1980, and November 1, 2010, with a first-ever young ischemic stroke were recruited for cognitive assessment, using a matched stroke-free population as a reference. Composite Z scores for 7 cognitive domains were calculated and the ANCOVA model was used (Bonferroni correction). A below average performance was defined as >1.0 SD below the age-adjusted mean of the controls and cognitive impairment as >1.5 SD. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-seven patients and 146 matched controls completed cognitive assessment (mean follow-up, 11.0 years, SD, 8.2; age, 50.9 years, SD, 10.3). Long-term cognitive outcome after an ischemic stroke was worse in most cognitive domains compared with a nonstroke population. Up to 50% of the patients had a below average performance or cognitive impairment. Deficits in processing speed, working memory, and attention were most common. CONCLUSIONS: Even 11 years after ischemic stroke in young adults, a substantial proportion of patients must cope with permanent cognitive deficits. These results have implications for information given to patients and rehabilitation services.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".