Increased work and social engagement is associated with increased stroke specific quality of life in stroke survivors at 3 months and 12 months post-stroke: a longitudinal study of an Australian stroke cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a relative lack of longitudinal studies investigating stroke-specific outcomes and quality of life (QOL). This study aimed to identify which factors (level of disability, cognitive functioning, depressive symptoms, physical activity, and work and social engagement) were independently associated with each stroke-specific domain of QOL, adjusting for age and gender, at 3 months and 12 months post-stroke in an Australian cohort. METHOD: Survivors of ischemic stroke were recruited from 18 sites of the STroke imAging pRevention and Treatment (START) longitudinal cohort study. Survivors were assessed at 3 months (n = 185) and 12 months (n = 170) post-stroke using the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity, and Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). RESULTS: WSAS was independently associated with the SIS domains of: Physical Composite function; Participation; and Perceived Recovery at 3 months and 12 months and SIS domain of Emotion at 12 months post-stroke. The presence of depressive symptoms was independently associated with the SIS domains of: Memory and Thinking; and Emotion at 3 months. At 12 months post-stroke, mRS was independently associated with SIS domain of Physical Composite function and MoCA with SIS domain of Communication. CONCLUSION: Engaging in work and social activities is an important factor associated with stroke-specific domains of QOL over time. It is recommended that services focus on improving work and social engagement given their importance related to QOL in the first year of recovery post-stroke. Identifying and treating those with depressive symptoms may enhance QOL in the early months post-stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: START-PrePARE Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials, www.anzctr.org.au , Registry number: ACTRN12610000987066. EXTEND ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00887328.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".