The Usefulness and Clinical Characteristics of Antidepressant Use for Stroke Patients with Rehabilitation Program: An Exploratory Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There has been a lack of data regarding the usefulness and clinical characteristic between patients-treated with and without antidepressants (Pw/Pwo ADs).Methods: One hundred and eighty inpatients were recruited and observed for a 6-month.The depressive, cognitive, daily activity, and motor symptoms were evaluated at baseline and tracked at month 6, with the use of rating scales including Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Global Deterioration Scale (GDS), modified Rankin Scale (MRS), modified Barthel Index (MBI), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS).Results: Among 178 patients, 84 (47.2%) were treated with ADs.PwAD had numerically or significantly higher depressive cognitive, and motor symptoms along with daily activity impairment (8.3 point higher in BDI score, p ＜ 0.001; 3.6 point lower in MMSE, p = 0.003; 0.8 point higher in GDS score, p = nonsignificant; 8.2 point lower in BBS score, p = 0.053, and 0.4 point higher in MBI score, p = nonsignificant) than PwoAD.Psychiatric consultation was also significantly higher in PwAD than in PwoAD (p ＜ 0.001).The numbers need to treat for good clinical outcomes between PwAD and PwoAD were 5.8, 6.0, and 7.5, respectively, by MRS, MBI, and BBS scores.Conclusion: Our findings suggest the potential utility of AD treatment and different clinical parameters between patients-treated with and without ADs.Adequately-powered and well-controlled further studies are mandatory to confirm and fully elaborate such association.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".