Changes in Cognition, Depression and Quality of Life after Carotid Stenosis Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although several studies have evaluated the change of cognitive performance after severe carotid artery stenosis, the results still remain elusive. The objective of this study was to assess changes in cognitive function, depressive symptoms and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) after carotid stenosis revascularisation and Best Medical Treatment (BMT). METHODS: Study involved 213 patients with ≥70% carotid stenosis who underwent assessment of cognitive function using Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA), depressive symptoms - using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and HRQoL - using Medical Outcome Survey Short Form version 2 (SF-36v2). The assessment was performed before and at 6 and 12 months followup periods in patients who had Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA), Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS) or received BMT only. RESULTS: Improvement in the total MoCA scores was observed after 6 and 12 months (p<0.001, Kendall's W=0.28) in the CEA group. In the CAS group - after 12 months (p=0.01, Kendall's W=0.261) whereas in the BMT group - no significant changes (p=0.295, Kendall's W=0.081) were observed. Reduction of depressive symptoms was not found in any of the study groups. Comparing mean SF-36v2 scores in the CEA group, there was no significant difference in any of 10 subscales. Likewise in the CAS group - no significant difference in 9 of 10 subscales (p=0.028, η2=0.343) was observed. Three subscales worsened in the BMT group during the 1-year follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe carotid stenosis who underwent revascularisation enhanced their cognitive performance without exerting significant change of depressive symptoms. Preoperative HRQoL may be maintained for at least one year in the CEA group.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".