OptiCogs: feasibility of a multicomponent intervention to rehabilitate people with cognitive impairment post-stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Despite the prevalence and associated burden of cognitive impairment post-stroke, there is uncertainty regarding optimal cognitive rehabilitation for people post-stroke. This study aimed to assess whether a multicomponent intervention, called OptiCogs, is feasible, acceptable, and safe for people with cognitive impairment post-stroke. A secondary aim was to explore changes in cognitive function, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, and occupational performance, from pre-intervention to post-intervention. METHODS: A feasibility study was conducted where people post-stroke with cognitive impairment enrolled in a 6-week multicomponent intervention. The primary outcomes recorded included response rate, recruitment rate, retention rate, adherence to the intervention protocol, adverse events, and acceptability of the intervention to people post-stroke. Secondary outcomes included (i) change in cognitive functioning using the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III, (ii) fatigue using the Fatigue Severity scale, (iii) quality of life using the Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale (iv) physical function using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system, and (v) patient-reported occupational performance using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension reporting guidelines were followed, for pilot and feasibility studies, to standardize the conduct and reporting of this study. RESULTS: The response rate was 10.9%. Nine eligible participants were enrolled during the 4-month recruitment period, with eight participants completing the entire 6-week intervention, as well as the pre- and post-intervention outcome measures. There were no reported adverse events. Participants were satisfied with the intervention and found it acceptable overall. Results of the secondary outcomes were promising for cognitive function (ACE III, pre: 63.3 ± 23.9 to post: 69 ± 24.6), fatigue (FSS, pre: 52.5 ± 7.3 to post: 45.6 ± 7.2), quality of life (SSQoL, pre: 131.0 ± 26.3 to post: 169.9 ± 15.3), physical function (PROMIS-PF, pre: 15.5 ± 6.3 to post: 15.8 ± 5.3), and occupational performance (COPM performance, pre: 9.3 ± 2.3 to post: 22.9 ± 4.2) and COPM satisfaction, pre: 9.9 ± 2.1 to post: 22.7 ± 3.5). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results suggest low-modest recruitment and high retention rates for the OptiCogs intervention. Changes in cognitive function, fatigue, quality of life, and self-reported occupational performance show improvement from pre- to post-intervention. These potential benefits require further testing in a larger pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05414539.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".