Neurological outcome and quality of life 3 months after COVID‐19: A prospective observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess neurological manifestations and health-related quality of life (QoL) 3 months after COVID-19. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study we systematically evaluated neurological signs and diseases by detailed neurological examination and a predefined test battery assessing smelling disorders (16-item Sniffin Sticks test), cognitive deficits (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), QoL (36-item Short Form), and mental health (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-5) 3 months after disease onset. RESULTS: Of 135 consecutive COVID-19 patients, 31 (23%) required intensive care unit (ICU) care (severe), 72 (53%) were admitted to the regular ward (moderate), and 32 (24%) underwent outpatient care (mild) during acute disease. At the 3-month follow-up, 20 patients (15%) presented with one or more neurological syndromes that were not evident before COVID-19. These included polyneuro/myopathy (n = 17, 13%) with one patient presenting with Guillain-Barré syndrome, mild encephalopathy (n = 2, 2%), parkinsonism (n = 1, 1%), orthostatic hypotension (n = 1, 1%), and ischemic stroke (n = 1, 1%). Objective testing revealed hyposmia/anosmia in 57/127 (45%) patients at the 3-month follow-up. Self-reported hyposmia/anosmia was lower (17%) at 3 months, however, improved when compared to the acute disease phase (44%; p < 0.001). At follow-up, cognitive deficits were apparent in 23%, and QoL was impaired in 31%. Assessment of mental health revealed symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorders in 11%, 25%, and 11%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recovery from the acute infection, neurological symptoms were prevalent at the 3-month follow-up. Above all, smelling disorders were persistent in a large proportion of patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".