Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the potential systemic effects of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) on the nervous system. We designed a study aiming to assess the frequency and clinical predictors of cognitive impairment in AS patients. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional case-control study composed of consecutive patients with AS. Trained and blinded interviewers registered clinical-epidemiological data and applied a standardized neurological assessment for each subject of the study. At baseline, functional limitations were characterized using the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Cognitive impairment was evaluated with the Brief Cognitive Screening Battery, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Clinical Dementia Rating, while neuropsychiatric symptoms were investigated with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Healthy controls were matched for age, educational attainment, sex, and comorbidities. We compared the neurological outcomes between case and controls, and we determined the clinical predictors of cognitive decline. RESULTS: We included 40 patients (mean: 49.3 years) with AS and 40 healthy controls (mean: 48.8 years) in our study. In Brief Cognitive Screening Battery, patients with AS presented a statistically significant poor performance in the clock drawing test and in the verbal fluency. The mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores were significantly lower in AS subjects compared to the control group. Also, the prevalence of subjects classified as cognitively impaired according to MoCA was significantly higher in the AS group (90.0% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.02). Moreover, neuropsychiatric symptoms were more prevalent in AS patients. Worse functional limitations were associated with poor cognitive performance as well. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AS might be more vulnerable to cognitive decline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".