Factors Affecting Quality of Life among Post-Stroke Patients in the Sub-Himalayan Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Stroke is one of the most debilitating conditions contributing to significant disability and death globally. Identifying risk factors for quality of life (QoL) will enable to improve home-based rehabilitation in post-stroke phase. Objective This study was aimed to identify the risk factors of QoL in stroke patients in the sub-Himalayan region. Materials and Methods A cross-sectional hospital-based study assessed the QoL among stroke patients within a week after the onset of acute stroke and then re-evaluated at 3 months. World Health Organization QoL-BREF, Beck Depression Inventory, the Barthel Index, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) were used to seek data on QoL, depression, cognitive, and functional dependence status, respectively. Appropriate statistics were used to compute the results. Results In total, 129 stroke patients recruited, out of which 102 returned to a 3-month follow-up. QoL, MOCA, disability index, and depression score were compared using Wilcoxon Singed-rank test. In multivariate analysis, depression and disability together predicted 60% of the variance for physical QoL ( p < 0.0001). Similarly, poststroke depression and disability together predicted 61% of the variance for psychological QoL ( p < 0.0001) in stroke patients. Conclusion Findings indicated that depression and disability are leading risk factors of QoL in stroke patients. Early identification of poststroke depression and functional dependence status is, therefore, essential to devise screening procedure and to develop targeted intervention to improve rehabilitation outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".