MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200320334 · doi:10.30978/unj2021-3-31

Post-stroke cognitive impairment: screening with MMSE and MoCA and predictors of their persistence after treatment at the Stroke Center

2021· article· en· W4200320334 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuriy Flomin, Vitaliy Gurianov, Л. И. Соколова

Bibliographic record

VenueUkrainian Neurological Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineLogistic regressionConventional PCIInternal medicineStroke (engine)Cognitive impairmentPhysical therapyMini–Mental State ExaminationCardiologyDiseaseMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective — to analyze the results of screening for post‑stroke cognitive impairment (PCI) in patients with cerebral stroke (CS) admitted to the Stroke Center (SC) in different disease phases, and to determine independent predictors of the PCI persistence at discharge.
 Methods and subjects. 399 patients were enrolled, including 242 (60.7 %) men and 157 (39.3 %) women with the median age was 66.2 years (IQR 58.5 — 76.3). IS was diagnosed in 331 (82.9 %), and ICH in 68 (17.1 %) patients. Among patients with IS, 137 (41.4 %) had an atherothrombotic subtype, 152 (46.0 %) had a cardioembolic subtype, 21 (6.3 %) had a lacunar subtype, another 21 (6.3 %) had another or unknown cause of stroke. Patients were screened for PCI using the Mini‑Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) on admission and at discharge. Participants with MMSE score of 0 — 24 or a MoCA score of 0 — 25 were considered having PCI. Upon admission, all patients were assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Bartel Index, and Modified Rankine Scale (mRS). The method of constructing and analyzing logistic regression models was used to determine independent predictors of the preservation of PCI at discharge. The analysis was carried out using the MedCalc v. 19.1.
 Results. The baseline NIHSS score ranged from 0 to 39 (median 11, IQR 6 — 18). The majority (64.2 %) of the subjects were hospitalized within the first 30 days from the CS onset. The MMSE score on admission ranged from 0 to 30 (median 20, IQR 2 — 27), and in 179 (44.9 %) of the patients the initial score was 0 to 17 (severe PCI), whereas in 61 (15 3 %) of the participants it was 18 to 24 (moderately severe PCI) and only 159 (39.8 %) persons scored 25 to 30 (no PCI). The baseline MoCA score ranged from 0 to 30 (median 15, IQR 1 — 24), and 356 (89.2 %) patients were shown to have PCI (score 0 to 25). According to screening with MMSE at discharge, 125 (31.4 %) patients had severe PCI, and 67 (16.8 %) had moderately severe PCI. The MoCA assessment before discharge indicated PCI in 324 (81.2 %) patients. According to both MMSE and MoCA, the rate of PCI on admission was significantly higher than at discharge (p < 0.001). Among the 240 patients who had PCI according to MMSE score, 239 (99.6 %) had PCI according to the MoCA score. However, among 159 patients who screened negative for PCI with MMSE at admission, 117 (73.6 %) screened positive with MoCA. Screening results using both MMSE and MoCA were not significantly associated with affected hemisphere. ICH was associated with lower (p < 0.0001) MMSE and MoCA scores compared with IS. Predictors of PCI according to MMSE score at discharge were a longer time interval from CS onset to SC admission, and a lower baseline MMSE score. However, with MoCA, the predictors were AT subtype IS, lesions in the distribution of the right or both middle cerebral arteries, older patient age, and a lower baseline MoCA score.
 Conclusions. In patients with MI, a high rate of PCI was documented on admission, but was significantly lower at discharge. In patients with established PCI, according to MMSE score, the use of MoCA for screening seems useless, however, screening with MoCA identified PCI in 3/4 in patients with a normal MMSE score. The independent predictors of scores on these two scales, indicating PCI, were significantly different, so they should not be considered interchangeable.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUkrainian Neurological JournalSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207