Telephone-based cognitive screening for stroke patients in china
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Valid telephone assessment for cognitive impairment is lacking in stroke settings. We investigated the feasibility and validity of the 5-minute National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) protocol and six-item screener (SIS) in stroke patients by telephone administration. METHODS: Patients were assessed with a comprehensive face-to-face neuropsychological assessment after three months of stroke onset, followed by the 5-minute NINDS-CSN protocol (30 points) and SIS (6 points) at least one month later. Administration time was recorded for the telephone tests. Validity of both tests was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients (age, 62.9 ± 8.6 years; male, 65.2%) received a face-to-face assessment and 80 completed telephone tests. The time required to administer the 5-minute NINDS-CSN protocol was 4.3 ± 1.0 minutes, and SIS 57.3 ± 17.7 seconds. Validity of detecting cognitive impairment as assessed by AUC was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.94) for 5-minute NINDS-CSN protocol, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.63-0.85) for SIS. Sensitivity and specificity were optimal with the cut-off values of 23.5/24 for the 5-minute NINDS-CSN protocol, and 4/5 for SIS. CONCLUSIONS: Both the telephone-based 5-minute NINDS-CSN protocol and SIS were feasible and valid in screening cognitive impairment after stroke in China.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".