MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2272566711 · doi:10.1161/str.43.suppl_1.a2640

Abstract 2640: Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a Short and Valuable Cognitive Evaluation in Acute Stroke

2012· article· en· W2272566711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Poggesi, Marco Pasi, Emilia Salvadori, Domenico Inzitari, Leonardo Pantoni

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineStroke (engine)DementiaLeukoaraiosisNeuropsychologyCognitionInternal medicineAcute strokeMultivariate analysisPhysical therapyNeuropsychological assessmentCognitive impairmentPediatricsPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Stroke patients are at high risk of developing dementia, but no agreement exists on what instrument should be used in the acute stroke phase to detect patients at higher risk of cognitive decline. Our aims were to investigate: 1) the feasibility and applicability of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test in the acute phase of stroke; 2) the predictive value of MoCA on the diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Methods: Consecutive stroke patients (ischemic or hemorrhagic) admitted to our Stroke Unit were evaluated with MoCA between 5-9 days after stroke. Pre-morbid functional and cognitive status were assessed by a structured interview to caregivers. Neuroimaging information was collected regarding index and pre-existing lesions (number and site of lesions, leukoaraiosis, atrophy). Clinical and neuropsychological follow-up was scheduled after 6 months. Results: From December 2009 to December 2010, out of 208 patients with stroke, 138 (66%) were enrolled [mean age 69.1+/-15.0; males 62%; mean NIHSS score 5.7+/-7.7]. Non-enrolment was mostly due to unfitting of the time window inclusion criteria. MoCA was applicable to 114/138 (83%) of enrolled patients and the mean score was 17.9+/-7.2. Multivariate analyses showed that non-applicability was associated with higher NIHSS scores [OR(95% CI)=1.4(1.2-1.7) for each point] and left sided lesions [OR(95% CI)=13.3(1.8-97.9)]. After 6 months, 73 patients (53%) have been re-assessed: 40 had cognitive impairment (6 dementia, 34 MCI), while the remaining 33 did not show any cognitive impairment. Using logistic regression model, considering clinical variables such as age, gender, years of schooling, NIHSS, and pre-morbid cognitive status, MoCA was the only predictor of cognitive decline [OR(95% CI)=1.4(1.2-1.6) for each test point]. When adding neuroimaging features to the model, the independent effect of MoCA was only slightly attenuated [OR(95% CI)=1.4(1.1-1.7)]. The other independent predictor of cognitive decline turned out to be leukoaraiosis severity [OR(95%CI)=0.4(0.2-0.9) for each point of the van Swieten scale]. Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that the MoCA is feasible and applicable in the acute phase of stroke. Moreover, MoCA seems to have a predictive effect on the diagnosis of cognitive decline at 6-month follow-up, making it a good candidate for cognitive screening in stroke setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→