Post-stroke Fatigue and Depressive Symptoms Are Differentially Related to Mobility and Cognitive Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fatigue and depressive symptoms are common and often inter-related stroke sequelae. This study investigates how they contribute, directly or indirectly, to mobility and cognitive outcomes within 6 months of stroke. Methods: Participants were recruited from 4 stroke centres in Ontario, Canada. Post-stroke fatigue was assessed using the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS). Depressive symptoms were screened using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Scale for Depression (CES-D). Factor analyses were used to construct scores from mobility (distance travelled during a 2-minute walk test, Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment leg score [CMSA-leg], and Berg Balance Scale [BBS] total score) and cognitive (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA], Trail-Making Tests A and B, and five-word free recall) tests. Direct associations were assessed in linear regression models and indirect effects were assessed in path models. Covariates were age, sex, education, antidepressant use, days since stroke and stroke severity. Results: CES-D and FAS scores were highly correlated (r>0.51, p<0.0001). Depressive symptoms were associated with cognition (β=-0.184, p=0.04) and indirectly with mobility, mediated by fatigue (indirect effect = -0.0142, 95% CI: -0.0277 to -0.0033). Fatigue was associated with mobility (β=-0.253, p=0.01), and indirectly with cognition, mediated by depressive symptoms (indirect effect = -0.0113, 95% CI: -0.0242 to -0.0023). Conclusions: Fatigue and depressive symptoms contribute distinctly to cognitive and mobility impairments post-stroke. Fatigue was associated with poorer lower limb motor function, and with cognition indirectly via depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".