MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive Functions During Acute Period of COVID-19 and Recovery

2022· article· en· W4285049182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S.S. Kabysh, A.D. Karpenkova, С. В. Прокопенко, Alexandra V. Golikova-Chereshkevich, А.Н. Наркевич

Bibliographic record

VenueDoctor Ru · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentAnxietyDepression (economics)MedicineCognitionHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicinePsychiatryPediatricsCognitive impairmentDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Objective: To identify the impact from the pneumonia-complicated COVID-19 coronavirus infection over patients’ cognitive functions. Study design: Perspective study. Materials and Methods. We examined 32 patients with COVID from the study group on days 2–3, 8–10 in inpatient settings, after 2 months of hospitalisation vs 30 healthy controls. Cognitive functions were evaluated using the following neuropsychologic tests: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), The Clock-drawing Test (CDT). Signs of anxiety and depression were screened using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Study Results. During the acute and recovery periods, patients from the study group demonstrated statistically significant cognitive disorders as per MMSE, MoCA, FAB vs controls (p < 0.001). On days 2–3 and 8–10 in inpatient settings, MMSE was 22 [22; 29] and 22 [19.2; 23.7] points; MoCA — 26 [21; 28] and 21 [18; 23] points, FAB — 13 [10; 18] and 10 [8; 12] points; in 2 months after hospitalisation, MMSE was 29 [26.8; 30] points (р = 0.008 vs days 2–3 and 8–10), MoCA — 25 [22; 27] points (р = 0.03 vs days 8–10), FAB — 16 [14.5; 17] points (р = 0.004 and р = 0.02). The condition of cognitive functions measured during the acute period of the disease worsened even more by days 8–10 of hospitalisation and tended to normalise in 2 months. As per HADS, there were no abnormal findings; therefore, the patients were neither anxious, nor depressed, and the median was 8 points. СDT values were normal as well, both in acute period and during recovery. Conclusion. The coronavirus infection impacts the cognitive status. For cognitive dysfunctions, neuroprotectives and non-drug cognitive rehabilitation can be recommended. Cognitive dysfunctions are quite an expected independent syndrome, the course of which is not directly associated with somatic recovery. Keywords: COVID-19, cognitive disorders, coronavirus infection, pandemic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDoctor RuSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207