The effect of intravenous thrombolytic therapy on post stroke depression and cognitive dysfunction: A 3-months follow up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of intravenous thrombolytic therapy with recombinant plasminogen activator (rt-PA) on functional recovery at 3-18 months following the treatment. The objectives of this study were to investigate differences between thrombolytic or no thrombolytic treatment and if could be a relationship between patients who have underwent the thrombolytic treatment in terms of depressive symptoms and cognitive impairment. In this retrospective study, we evaluated 92 patients affected by ischemic stroke recruited from our rehabilitation center, coming from a Stroke Unit. All the eligible subjects were assessed at admission (T0) and two months later, at discharge, upon concluded the rehabilitation program (T1). The patients were divided into two groups: Thrombolysis Group (n.40 subjects) and no Thrombolysis Group (n.52 subjects). Cognitive functions were evaluated with the Montreal Overall Cognitive Assessment. Functional status were evaluated with the Barthel Index and the Functional Independent Misure. We administered Beck Depression Inventory-II to verify the presence of a depressive state. We found that at three months after stroke, the prevalence of depressive symptoms and cognitive improvement, among patient who had undergone thrombolytic treatment, and who had not, was not different. Conversely, we found an improvement of depressive symptoms in each group.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".