Fatigue, psychological and cognitive impairment following transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke are characterized by short-lasting symptoms; however, anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that these patients experience ongoing cognitive/psychological impairment for which they are not routinely treated. The aims were (i) to investigate the prevalence and time course of fatigue, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder(PTSD) and cognitive impairment following TIA/minor stroke; (ii) to explore the impact on quality of life (QoL), change in emotions and return to work; and (iii) to identify where further research is required and potentially inform an intervention study. A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane libraries and the grey literature between January 1993 and April 2013 was undertaken. Literature was screened and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Studies were included of adult TIA/minor stroke participants with any of the outcomes of interest: fatigue, anxiety, depression, PTSD, cognitive impairment, QoL, change in emotions and return to work. Random-effects meta-analysis pooled outcomes by measurement tool. Searches identified 5976 records, 289 were assessed for eligibility and 31 studies were included. Results suggest high levels of cognitive impairment and depression post-TIA/minor stroke which decreased over time. However, frequencies varied between studies. Limited information was available on anxiety, PTSD and fatigue. Meta-analysis revealed that the measurement tool administered influenced the prevalence of cognitive impairment: Mini-Mental State Examination 17% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7, 26]; neuropsychological test battery 39% (95% CI 28, 50); Montreal Cognitive Assessment 54% (95% CI 43, 66). There is evidence to suggest that TIA/minor stroke patients may experience residual impairments; however, results should be interpreted with caution because of the few high quality studies. Notwithstanding, it is important to raise awareness of potential subtle but meaningful residual impairments.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".