MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laboratory, clinical, neurological and neuropsychological features of the course of post-COVID syndrome in patients with cerebrovascular disease

2023· article· en· W4387231367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V.V. Marshtupa, T.I. Nasonova

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERNATIONAL NEUROLOGICAL JOURNAL · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDepression (economics)NeuropsychiatryDiseaseAnxietyNeuropsychologyBeck Depression InventoryPediatricsPhysical therapyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of the literature reveals a wide range of terms for conditions after coronavirus disease (COVID-19): post-­COVID syndrome, post-acute COVID syndrome, chronic COVID-19, long-term complications of COVID-19, long COVID-19, and post-acute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. All these terms and others indicate that after ­COVID-19, a person does not return to his/her usual state of health. Many scientists are researching and looking for the causes of these symptoms, why and when they occur, and how to diagnose and treat them. Therefore, the aim of the study was to improve the diagnosis of post-COVID syndrome in patients with cerebrovascular disease (CVD) by studying clinical, neurological, laboratory and neuropsychological markers. Materials and methods. The study uses psychometric methods — Beck Anxiety Inventory, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Fatigue Assessment Scale; neuropsychological — Montreal Cognitive Assessment; clinical — neurological status; laboratory — hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, albumin, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase. All patients were divided into four groups: the first group included 20 people with post-­COVID syndrome and CVD, the second — 15 individuals with post-COVID syndrome without CVD, the third — 15 patients without post-COVID syndrome with CVD, and the fourth — 15 people without post-COVID syndrome and without CVD. Results. In the group of patients with post-COVID syndrome with cerebrovascular disease (n1 = 20), the average level of hemoglobin (M = 115.15 ± 4.93) and albumin (M = 32.15 ± 1.53) was below the normal range; the content of fibrinogen (M = 6.04 ± 0.82), C-reactive protein (M = 5.50 ± 0.68) was above normal. Data of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale indicate that patients with post-COVID syndrome and cerebrovascular disease Data of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale indicate that patients with post-COVID syndrome and cerebrovascular disease (n1 = 20) had a mild depression (M = 6.75 ± 3.90; M = 8.60 ± ± 3.06). Correlation analysis revealed a direct relationship between cognitive functions and hemoglobin (r = 0.455, p ≤ 0.01), albumin (r = 0.571, p ≤ 0.01) and an inverse relationship between cognitive functions and fibrinogen (r = –0.605, p ≤ 0.01), C-reactive protein (r = –0.547, p ≤ 0.01), ferritin (r = 0.408, p ≤ 0.01). There was an inverse correlation between anxiety and hemoglobin (r = –0.619, p ≤ 0.01) and albumin (r = –0.567, p ≤ 0.01) and a direct relationship between anxiety and fibrinogen (r = 0.550, p ≤ 0.01) and C-reactive protein (r = 0.537, p ≤ 0.01). The depression scale negatively correlates with the level of hemoglobin (r = –0.597, p ≤ 0.01), albumin (r = –0.543, p ≤ 0.01) and directly with the content of fibrinogen (r = 0.433, p ≤ 0.01), C-reactive protein (r = 0.383, p ≤ 0.01) and lactate dehydrogenase (r = 0.276, p ≤ 0.05). The indicators of fibrinogen, C-reactive protein, and ferritin were the highest in the group of patients with post-COVID syndrome and cerebrovascular disease. According to the obtained data, there are statistically significant differences between four groups in cognitive functions (χ2 = 36.419, p ≤ 0.01), fatigue (χ2 = 37.251, p ≤ 0.01), anxiety (χ2 = 37.981, p ≤ 0.01) and depression (χ2 = 37.171, p ≤ 0.01). The highest rate of fatigue, anxiety, and depression was found in patients with post-COVID syndrome and cerebrovascular disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERNATIONAL NEUROLOGICAL JOURNALSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207