MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390078600 · doi:10.1017/s1355617723007622

3 CI Cognitive Therapy: Initial Application in a Pilot Study to Improve Cognitive Impairment in Chronic Stroke Survivors

2023· article· en· W4390078600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward Taub, Gitendra Uswatte, Karlene Ball, Victor W. Mark, Staci McKay, Brandon Mitchell, Jason A. Blake, Amy J. Knight, Chen Lin, Gary Cutter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingCognitionPsychologyStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: CI Cognitive Therapy (CICT) is a combination of behavioral techniques derived from CI Movement Therapy (CIMT) modified to apply to the cognitive domain, and Speed of (Cognitive) Processing Training (SOPT). SOPT is effective in improving cognitive function in the treatment setting and driving ability in everyday situations. The data concerning the effect of SOPT on other cognition-based instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) in everyday situations is incomplete. The strengths of CIMT, based on its Transfer Package (TP), are to facilitate 1) transfer of improved function from the treatment setting to IADL in everyday settings, and 2) long-term retention of the improved performance of IADL. This study sought to determine in a preliminary case series whether the TP of CI Movement Therapy combined with SOPT would have the same effect on a wide range of impaired cognition-based ADL. Participants and Methods: Participants were 6 adults with chronic stroke: mean chronicity = 36.2 months, (range, 16-56 months); mean age = 59.7 years, (range, 47-55); 1 female; 3 African American and 3 European American. Five had mild cognitive impairment, while one had moderate impairment. Participants received 35 hours of outpatient treatment in 10-15 sessions distributed over 2-6 weeks, depending on the participants’ availability. Sessions began with 1 hour of SOPT training followed by training of cognition-based ADL by the process of shaping, a common method in the behavior analysis field. Other behavior analysis methods employed in the TP of CI Movement Therapy were used, including: 1) behavior contracting, daily assignment of homework, participation of a family member in the training and monitoring process, daily administration of a structured interview assessing amount and quality of performance of 30 IADL, problem solving to overcome perceived (or real) barriers to performance of IADL. Participants were given daily homework assignments in follow-up and were contacted in periodic, pre-arranged phone calls to determine status, compliance and problem-solve. Results: All six participants showed marked improvement on the SOPT test similar to that in the Ball et al studies. However, here transfer to IADL outside the treatment setting was substantial. On the main real-world outcome, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), there were increases of 2.7±1.3 and 2.1±1.6 on the two scales (d’s = 1.9 & 1.3, respectively). (Changes on the COPM > 2 points are considered clinically meaningful and changes in d’ >.8 are considered large). On two other real-word measures, the Cognitive Task Activity Log (CTAL) and inventory of Improved and New Cognitive Activities (INCA), there was a marked increase during the acquisition phase of training. There was no loss in retention over the 6-16 months (mean = 12.2) of follow-up to date. Instead, the INCA showed strong further improvement after the end of treatment-setting training, especially in the New Activities Not Performed Since Before Stroke Onset category, going from a mean of 8.2 after training to 14.6 at the end of follow-up. Conclusions: These very preliminary results suggest that CICT may be an efficacious therapy for mild to moderate cognitive impairment in chronic stroke and possibly other disorders.

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)0.001
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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 venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207