Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Frontal Assessment Battery test as a predictor of performance of unaffected hand function after subcortical stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to elucidate the association between unaffected hand function and cognitive impairment and to determine whether the cognitive screening test can be a predictor of unaffected upper limb function in patients with unilateral subcortical strokes. A retrospective study of 37 patients with unilateral first-ever subcortical stroke was conducted through a review of medical records. The unaffected hand function and cognitive screening tests were measured upon admission to the neurorehabilitation unit and then 4 weeks later at discharge. The relationship between unaffected hand function and cognitive function was investigated with multiple linear regression analysis. Comparing the initial evaluation of unaffected hand function and cognitive function with the evaluation at discharge, cognitive function improved significantly at discharge; however, grip strength and dexterity of the unaffected hand were stationary except for three-point pinch strength, tip pinch strength, and finger tapping speed. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) score was found to be a significant predictor of unaffected grip strength (R2 = 0.33, P = 0.004) and three-point pinch strength (R2 = 0.16, P = 0.04) at discharge and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) score to be a predictive value of the unaffected finger tapping test (R2 = 0.46, P < 0.001) at discharge. In subcortical stroke patients with low MoCA and FAB scores, clinicians must ensure that patients participate in rehabilitation therapy including bimanual activity with careful attention to the patient's unaffected hand function.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".