MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327901959 · doi:10.1007/s00415-023-11587-4

COVID-19 severity is related to poor executive function in people with post-COVID conditions

2023· article· en· W4327901959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mar Ariza, Neus Cano, Bàrbara Segura, Ana Adán, Núria Bargalló, Xavier Caldú, Anna Campabadal, Marı́a Ángeles Jurado, María Mataró, Roser Pueyo, Roser Sala‐Llonch, Cristian Barruè, Javier Alonso, Jose A. Bernia, Vanesa Arauzo, Marta Balague-Marmaña, Berta Valles-Pauls, Jesús Caballero, Anna Carnes, Gerard Piñol‐Ripoll, Ester Gonzalez-Aguado, Carme Tayó-Juli, Eva Forcadell-Ferreres, Silvia Reverte-Vilarroya, Susanna Forné, Jordina Muñoz-Padros, Anna Bartes-Plan, José A. Muñoz-Moreno, Anna Prats-Paris, Inmaculada Rico, Núria Sabé, Laura Casas, Marta Almería, María José Ciudad, Anna Ferré, Manuela Lozano, Tamar Garzon, Marta Cullell, Sonia Vega, Sílvia Alsina, Maria J. Maldonado-Belmonte, Susana Vazquez-Rivera, Sandra Sanz Navarro, Eva Baillés, Maite Garolera, Carme Junqué

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaGeneralitat de CatalunyaUniversitat de BarcelonaFundació la Marató de TV3
KeywordsCognitionVerbal fluency testCognitive testMedicineNeurologyPsychiatryExecutive functionsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychologyClinical psychologyNeuropsychologyAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) conditions typically experience cognitive problems. Some studies have linked COVID-19 severity with long-term cognitive damage, while others did not observe such associations. This discrepancy can be attributed to methodological and sample variations. We aimed to clarify the relationship between COVID-19 severity and long-term cognitive outcomes and determine whether the initial symptomatology can predict long-term cognitive problems. Cognitive evaluations were performed on 109 healthy controls and 319 post-COVID individuals categorized into three groups according to the WHO clinical progression scale: severe-critical (n = 77), moderate-hospitalized (n = 73), and outpatients (n = 169). Principal component analysis was used to identify factors associated with symptoms in the acute-phase and cognitive domains. Analyses of variance and regression linear models were used to study intergroup differences and the relationship between initial symptomatology and long-term cognitive problems. The severe-critical group performed significantly worse than the control group in general cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), executive function (Digit symbol, Trail Making Test B, phonetic fluency), and social cognition (Reading the Mind in the Eyes test). Five components of symptoms emerged from the principal component analysis: the "Neurologic/Pain/Dermatologic" "Digestive/Headache", "Respiratory/Fever/Fatigue/Psychiatric" and "Smell/ Taste" components were predictors of Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores; the "Neurologic/Pain/Dermatologic" component predicted attention and working memory; the "Neurologic/Pain/Dermatologic" and "Respiratory/Fever/Fatigue/Psychiatric" components predicted verbal memory, and the "Respiratory/Fever/Fatigue/Psychiatric," "Neurologic/Pain/Dermatologic," and "Digestive/Headache" components predicted executive function. Patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited persistent deficits in executive function. Several initial symptoms were predictors of long-term sequelae, indicating the role of systemic inflammation and neuroinflammation in the acute-phase symptoms of COVID-19." Study Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier NCT05307549 and NCT05307575.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations56
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurologySame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207