Changes in cognitive functioning after COVID‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults with no prior history of cognitive impairment. METHODS: Searches in Medline/Web of Science/Embase from January 1, 2020, to December 13, 2021, were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A meta-analysis of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) total score comparing recovered COVID-19 and healthy controls was performed. RESULTS: Oof 6202 articles, 27 studies with 2049 individuals were included (mean age = 56.05 years, evaluation time ranged from the acute phase to 7 months post-infection). Impairment in executive functions, attention, and memory were found in post-COVID-19 patients. The meta-analysis was performed with a subgroup of 290 individuals and showed a difference in MoCA score between post-COVID-19 patients versus controls (mean difference = -0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.59, -0.29; P = .0049). DISCUSSION: Patients recovered from COVID-19 have lower general cognition compared to healthy controls up to 7 months post-infection.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".