Clinical characteristics of cognitive impairment and its related risk factors in post‐stroke epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) patients are prone to cognitive impairment (CI) due to multiple factors. This study aimed to assess clinical characteristics of CI and its related risk factors in newly diagnosed Chinese Han adult epilepsy patients with ischaemic stroke. Methods: Data were collected on PSE patients hospitalized in the neurology ward of the Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, from January 2016 to May 2019. Newly diagnosed PSE patients were followed for six months; their cognitive functions were then assessed according to the Chinese Beijing version of the Montreal Scale (MoCA) and patients were divided into a PSE+CI group (MoCA scale score <26) (n=81) or PSE-CI group (MoCA scale score ≥26) (n=36). Data collection tools also included the Chinese versions of the Zheng Self-assessment Anxiety Scale, the Zheng Self-assessment Depression Scale, the Barthel index and the National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale. We compared the basic clinical characteristics between the two groups of patients and investigated the factors of CI in PSE patients. Results: In total, CI was present in 81 (69%) and absent in 36 (31%) PSE patients. MoCA total score in the PSE+CI group was 20.85±4.13 and 27.53±1.34 in the PSECI group. The Bonferroni corrected significance level was 0.0013. Scores for multiple cognitive domains (visuospatial/executive skills, naming, attention, language and delayed recall) were lower in the PSE+CI group than the PSE-CI group. Moreover, the PSE+CI group had a higher incidence of depression and anxiety. Univariate analysis showed that diabetes (p= 0.000) and the number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) (p= 0.001) were associated with CI in PSE. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that diabetes (odds ratio [OR]: 5.242, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.680-16.363, p= 0.004), high homocysteine levels (OR: 1.103, 95% CI: 1.008-1.207, p= 0.033) and the number of AEDs (OR: 3.354, 95% CI: 1.225-9.180, p= 0.019) were associated with CI in PSE. Significance: Diabetes, high homocysteine levels and a higher number of AEDs may be risk factors for CI in PSE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".