Interaction between cognitive reserve and age moderates effect of lesion load on stroke outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concepts of brain reserve and cognitive reserve were recently suggested as valuable predictors of stroke outcome. To test this hypothesis, we used age, years of education and lesion size as clinically feasible coarse proxies of brain reserve, cognitive reserve, and the extent of stroke pathology correspondingly. Linear and logistic regression models were used to predict cognitive outcome (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and stroke-induced impairment and disability (NIH Stroke Scale; modified Rankin Score) in a sample of 104 chronic stroke patients carefully controlled for potential confounds. Results revealed 46% of explained variance for cognitive outcome (p < 0.001) and yielded a significant three-way interaction: Larger lesions did not lead to cognitive impairment in younger patients with higher education, but did so in younger patients with lower education. Conversely, even small lesions led to poor cognitive outcome in older patients with lower education, but didn't in older patients with higher education. We observed comparable three-way interactions for clinical scores of stroke-induced impairment and disability both in the acute and chronic stroke phase. In line with the hypothesis, years of education conjointly with age moderated effects of lesion on stroke outcome. This non-additive effect of cognitive reserve suggests its post-stroke protective impact on stroke outcome.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".