The effect of the start date of cognitive rehabilitation after ischemic stroke on the level of recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The dependence of result of cognitive training in patients who have suffered an ischemic stroke (IS) on the timing of their onset continues to be discussed. The aim was to study the results of cognitive rehabilitation of patients after IS during various periods after it. Material and methods. 140 patients were examined during complex rehabilitation in terms up to 1, 2—3, 4—6 and 7—12 months after IS, 78 of them received drug support (DS) of rehabilitation with intravenous injections of ampasse. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were used to monitor the effectiveness of rehabilitation. Results. In all subgroups, there was a statistically significant increase in the MoCA score after the course, but number of people with an increase in the score by 1 or more points was highest among those who started the course 3 or more months after the development of IS (p=0.015). Among those who received DS, an increase in the MoCA was noted in 87.2%, in those who did not receive it — 38.7% (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant increase in the severity of anxiety and depression after the course of treatment in any of the subgroups. Conclusion. The used approach of a combination of cognitive, physical rehabilitation and DS proved to be justified for achieving results during a two-week course of inpatient rehabilitation of patients both in the early and late recovery period after IS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".