Neuropsychological Outcomes in Adult Patients and Survivors of COVID-19
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is believed to affect central nervous system functions through various indirect, and possibly direct, mechanisms. We are only now beginning to understand the possible effects of the virus on human cognition. This review summarizes extant yet limited literature on clinical neuropsychological findings in adult coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and survivors. Neuropsychological outcomes were often in the form of cognitive screen results, although various studies administered comprehensive batteries. With respect to screens, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment appeared relatively sensitive to cognitive dysfunction associated with COVID-19. Patients and survivors presented with weaknesses on screens and comprehensive batteries, although the pattern of these weaknesses was not specific to etiology. Broadly, weaknesses were suggestive of executive dysfunction, although more than one study did not detect significant impairment. Weaknesses should be interpreted cautiously due to potential confounds/contributing factors (weaknesses may partly reflect psychiatric sequelae; weaknesses may be over-interpreted due to inadequate assessment of premorbid functioning). Studies reported different approaches in defining impairment, likely contributing to variable findings. The current review discusses ongoing efforts to harmonize approaches to evaluating neuropsychological functioning globally, as well as emphasizes taking a comprehensive approach towards understanding how the disease affects cognition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it