Abstract WP427: Cognitive Function of Ten-year Stroke Survivors Compared to Non-stroke Individuals: the Lund Stroke Register
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) has a considerable impact on patients and society. However, the characteristics and prevalence of long-term PSCI may be influenced by assessment methods and selection bias. We therefore used two cognitive screening methods to assess PSCI in ten-year stroke survivors, made comparisons with non-stroke individuals, and compared these screening methods. Methods: The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were administered and compared in a population-based consecutive sample of ten-year stroke survivors. In addition, age- and sex-matched non-stroke controls were assessed with the MMSE. Regression analyses adjusting for education compared the stroke survivors’ MMSE performance with the controls. Moderate/severe cognitive impairment, approximating to dementia, was defined using MMSE<24 and MoCA<20 as cut-offs. To detect those with mild cognitive impairment, alternative cut-offs of MMSE<27 and MoCA<25 were also used. Results: In total, 127 of 145 stroke survivors participated. The total MMSE-scores were similar for stroke survivors (median 27) and 354 controls (median 27; p =0.922); as well as proportions with MMSE<24 (23% vs. 17%; p =0.175) or MMSE<27 (47% vs. 49%; p =0.671). After adjustment for education, stroke survivors showed an increased risk for moderate/severe cognitive impairment defined by MMSE<24 (OR=1.82; p =0.036). Executive dysfunction was seen in 42% of the stroke survivors vs. 16% of the controls as evaluated by MMSE ( p <0.001). According to MoCA, moderate/severe cognitive impairment (MoCA<20) was observed in 28% of the stroke survivors; any degree of cognitive impairment (MoCA<25) was seen in 61%; and 45-61% displayed executive function deficits. Conclusions: PSCI including executive dysfunction is common among ten-year stroke survivors, who have an increased risk of moderate/severe cognitive impairment compared to non-stroke controls. The prevalence of long-term PSCI may have been previously underestimated, and MoCA may be more suitable for post-stroke cognitive assessment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".