The Impact of Cognitive Impairment on Poststroke Outcomes: A 5-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore the impact of cognitive impairment poststroke on outcomes at 5 years. METHODS: Five-year follow-up of the Action on Secondary Prevention Interventions and Rehabilitation in Stroke (ASPIRE-S) prospective cohort. Two hundred twenty-six ischemic stroke survivors completed Montreal Cognitive Assessments at 6 months poststroke. Outcomes at 5 years included independence in activities of daily living, receipt of informal care, quality of life, and depressive symptoms. Data were analyzed using logistic and linear regression models. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs; 95% confidence interval [CI]) and β coefficients (95% CI) are reported. RESULTS: One hundred one stroke survivors were followed up at 5 years. Cognitive impairment at 6 months was independently associated with worse quality of life (B [95% CI]: -0.595 [-0.943 to -0.248]), lower levels of independence (B [95% CI]: -3.605 [-5.705 to -1.505]), increased likelihood of receiving informal care (OR [95% CI]: 6.41 [1.50-27.32]), and increased likelihood of depressive symptoms (OR [95% CI]: 4.60 [1.22-17.40]). Conclusion: Cognitive impairment poststroke is associated with a range of worse outcomes. More effective interventions are needed to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".