MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980607349 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4106

P4‐434: SLEEP AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION IN CHRONIC STROKE: A COMPARATIVE CROSS‐SECTIONAL STUDY

2019· article· en· W2980607349 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan S. Falck, John R. Best, Jennifer C. Davis, Janice J. Eng, Laura E. Middleton, Peter A. Hall, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOkanagan University CollegeBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusVancouver Coastal HealthKelowna General HospitalPositive Living Society of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)MedicineCognitive declineCognitionBody mass indexPhysical therapyDementiaObstructive sleep apneaCross-sectional studyPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceGerontologyInternal medicineSleep qualityDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor sleep is common following stroke, limits stroke recovery, and can contribute to further cognitive decline post-stroke. However, it is unclear what aspects of sleep are different in older adults with stroke compared to those without, and whether the relationship between sleep and cognitive function differs by stroke history. We therefore investigated whether older adults with stroke experience poorer sleep quality than older adults without stroke, and whether poor sleep quality attenuates cognitive performance among older adults with a history of stroke. This was an age- and sex-matched comparative cross-sectional study (Figure 1). Thirty five age- and sex-matched older adults with stroke (Age: 69.86 ± 1.13 years; 51.43% female) and without stroke (Age: 69.83 ± 1.12; 51.43% female) were compared with respect to sleep quality using the MotionWatch8© (MW8) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Cognitive performance was indexed using the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Plus (ADAS-Cog Plus). We examined differences in sleep quality and cognitive performance between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for age, sex, smoking history, body mass index, sleep medication use, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis. Additionally, we performed multiple linear regressions to examine to examine the relationship between sleep quality and cognitive function based on history of stroke, while controlling for age, sex, education and OSA diagnosis. Our ANCOVA models are described in Table 1. Older adults with stroke had longer MW8 measured sleep duration (27.82 ± 12.17 minutes; p= 0.03) and greater fragmentation (6.44 ± 2.24; p< 0.01), but did not differ in PSQI from their non-stroke peers. There was a significant group x sleep quality interaction for fragmentation (β= 0.02; p< 0.01) (Figure 2) and efficiency (β= −0.03; p= 0.02) (Figure 3) on ADAS-Cog Plus performance, whereby differences in cognitive performance between older adults with and without stroke were accentuated in the presence of poor sleep quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→