Correlation Between Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Functional Outcome in Subacute Stroke Patients With Cognitive Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the correlation between the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and functional outcome among subacute stroke patients with cognitive dysfunction. METHODS: Records of 61 inpatients were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups based on their initial MoCA score. MoCA score of 11 was set as the differentiating criterion. We compared the improvements in Modified Barthel Index (MBI) from initial assessment to discharge between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in relation to age, duration from onset to admission, hospitalization period, or years of education. In a comparison of the results of Mini-Mental Status Examinations (MMSE) administered at admission and again at discharge, there was significantly more improvement in MMSE scores in the group with low MoCA scores than in the group with high MoCA scores. However, the group with high MoCA scores also showed high MBI scores at discharge and exhibited greater MBI improvement. CONCLUSION: Higher initial MoCA scores (which reflect preservation of executive function) indicate better functional outcome in the subacute stroke phase.
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 | 0.001 | 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".