"COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS AND HEALTH STATUS IN PREVIOUSLY HOSPITALIZED VERSUS NON-HOSPITALIZED POST-COVID PATIENTS: A PILOT STUDY"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: An increasing amount of evidence indicates that patients after having been recovered from COVID-19 are still experiencing various neurocognitive deficits, as part of the commonly described post-COVID sequalae.These deficits can significantly affect patients' perceived health status and quality of life.Method: This study assesses global cognitive functions, executive functions, memory, attention, subjective cognitive functioning, perceived health status and quality of life.We compared 16 previously hospitalized (56% males, 44% females, age: 46.111.5 years, education in years: 14.94.2years) and 16 non-hospitalized (50% males age: 46.815.7 years, education in years: 14.82.38 years) post-COVID patients who were matched based on age, education level and time elapsed since the end of COVID-19 infection (respectively 160140 166143 days).Objective neuropsychological tests such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), forward and backward digit spans, Trail Making Test (TMT), verbal fluency test, Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and self-report scales such as the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ), Post-COVID-19 Functional Scale (PCFS) and EQ-VAS were administered and analyzed.Results: Previously hospitalized patients performed significantly worse on forward digit span task (p<.05), backward digit span task (p<.05) and lexical fluency (p<.05) compared to non-hospitalized patients.Moreover, hospitalized patients showed significantly higher scores on both parts of PCFS (p<.01 and p<.05).Discussion: This pilot study found that previously hospitalized post-COVID patients demonstrate decreased short-term memory, working memory, lexical fluency and perceived quality of life compared to previously non-hospitalized post-COVID patients.Nevertheless, contrasting to previous literature, we did not find significant differences in global cognition, mental flexibility, overall frontal functions, subjective cognitive deficit, and perceived health status.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".