Neuropsychological screening in the acute phase of cerebrovascular diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cognitive impairment is a common and disabling consequence of stroke. Its prevalence, the best way to screen for it in the acute setting, and its relation with premorbid status have not been thoroughly clarified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients admitted to our stroke unit underwent a baseline assessment that included a clinical and neuroimaging assessment, two cognitive tests (clock-drawing test, CDT; Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic, MoCA-B) and measures of premorbid function (including the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale). A follow-up examination was repeated 3-4 months after the acute event. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-three patients (52.5% women, mean age ± SD 75.8 years ± 12.3) were evaluated. Prestroke cognitive impairment was present in 91 patients (40.8%). At follow-up, the prevalence of cognitive impairment was 49%, while its incidence among patients who did not have any prestroke cognitive impairment was 38.8%. Of the originally admitted 223 patients (71 were lost to follow-up), only 60 (26.9%) were still cognitively intact at follow-up. On regression analysis, age and baseline CDT were associated with worsening of cognitive status at follow-up. In patients without cognitive impairment at baseline, a cutoff of 23 for MoCA-B and of 8.7 for CDT scores predicted the diagnosis of post-stroke cognitive impairment with sufficient accuracy. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Prestroke and post-stroke cognitive impairment affect a large proportion of patients with stroke. Our findings suggest that a neuropsychological screening during the acute phase might be predictive of the development of post-stroke cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".