Abstract WP497: Investigation of Cognitive Impairment in Ischemic Stroke Patients After Endovascular Treatment in Acute Phase and at 6 Months Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose and Objective: There have been limited reports that focused on cognitive impairment in acute ischemic stroke after endovascular treatment. The aim of this study, therefore, was to investigate cognitive function in patient after endovascular treatment in acute phase and at 6 months follow-up. Method: In this prospective study, from December 2016 to November 2018, the patients who were diagnosed as ischemic stroke with occlusion of the internal carotid artery and of the middle cerebral artery and treated with endovascular treatment were enrolled. Cognitive function was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) test within 5 days of onset and at 6 months follow-up. We defined cognitive impairment as a score of <24 in MoCA-J. Results: 150 patients were enrolled. MoCA-J was feasible in 69 patients (median 76 years; 49 female) (46%), in acute phase (Figure A). 63 patients (91%) had cognitive impairment and no significant differences were found in the naming and the abstraction domains between MoCA-J <24 group and ≧24 group. At 6 months follow-up, 48 patients (median 72 years; 12 female) were assessed with MoCA-J and 35 patients (73%) had cognitive impairment. However, only one patient scored less at 6 months follow-up than in acute phase (Figure B), which resulted in the significant increase in the median MoCA-J score (7 vs. 21, P<0.05) (Figure C) and in all the domains except for the language (P=0.078) (Figure D). Conclusion: In acute phase of ischemic stroke after endovascular treatment, MoCA-J was feasible in about 45%, in which 91% had cognitive impairment. However, at 6 months follow-up, the median MoCA-J score was significantly higher and less number of patients had cognitive impairment. The present results suggest that cognition recovers with time after endovascular treatment in ischemic stroke.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".