MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229336634 · doi:10.3390/jcm11092637

The Cognitive Sequelae of Transient Ischemic Attacks—Recent Insights and Future Directions

2022· review· en· W4229336634 on OpenAlexaff
Aravind Ganesh, Philip A. Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCognitionCognitive declineDementiaConfoundingStroke (engine)Window of opportunityPsychiatryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is now considerable evidence that Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) carries important sequelae beyond the risk of recurrent stroke, particularly with respect to peri-event and post-event cognitive dysfunction and subsequent cognitive decline. The occurrence of a TIA could provide an important window in understanding the relationship of early mixed vascular-neurodegenerative cognitive decline, and by virtue of their clinical relevance as a "warning" event, TIAs could also furnish the opportunity to act preventatively not only for stroke prevention but also for dementia prevention. In this review, we discuss the current state of the literature regarding the cognitive sequelae associated with TIA, reviewing important challenges in the field. In particular, we discuss definitional and methodological challenges in the study of TIA-related cognitive impairment, confounding factors in the cognitive evaluation of these patients, and provide an overview of the evidence on both transient and long-term cognitive impairment after TIA. We compile recent insights from clinical studies regarding the predictors and mediators of cognitive decline in these patients and highlight important future directions for work in this area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207