Goal Setting Improves Cognitive Performance in a Randomized Trial of Chronic Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Cognitive impairment after stroke, especially executive and attention dysfunction, is common, negatively affects daily functioning, and has limited treatment options. A single-blind, parallel-design, randomized controlled trial was used to examine the impact of goal setting on poststroke cognitive performance. Methods: Stroke survivors (n=72; mean age, 68.38 [SD=11.84] years; 69.4% men) in the chronic phase (≥3 months) after stroke from an academic stroke prevention clinic were randomly assigned to receive goal-setting instructions (n=36) or standard instructions (n=36) after completing baseline cognitive measures of executive function (primary outcome), attention/working memory, verbal learning, and verbal recall. Results: A one-way mixed multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) found a group by instructional manipulation interaction effect for executive function (Wilks λ=0.66; F [3,66]=11.30; P ≤0.001; η 2 p =0.34), after adjusting for age and years of education. After similar adjustment, attention/working memory (Wilks λ=0.86; F [5,63]=2.10; P =0.043; η 2 p =0.16) and verbal learning ( F [1,60]=5.81; P =0.019; η 2 p =0.09) also showed improvement after instruction but not verbal recall (Wilks λ=0.95; F [1,56]=2.82; P =0.099; η 2 p =0.05). There were no adverse events. Conclusions: Goal setting improved executive function, attention/working memory, and learning in a heterogeneous sample in the chronic phase after stroke. This suggests that >3 months after stroke, vascular cognitive impairment is not a fixed deficit; there is a motivational contributor. Brief treatments targeting goal-oriented behavior and motivation may serve as a novel approach or adjunct treatment to improve cognitive outcomes after stroke. Future research should investigate the use of goal setting on functional outcomes (eg, instrumental activities of daily living and vocational function) in this population, highlighting new potential avenues for treatment for vascular cognitive impairment. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03511300.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".