MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390078748 · doi:10.1017/s1355617723010792

2 Neuropsychological Test Performance Following Acute COVID-19 Infection Recovery: A Case Control Study

2023· article· en· W4390078748 on OpenAlexaff
Theone Paterson, Kristina M. Gicas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionNeuropsychologyExecutive functionsMemory spanPsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentVerbal memoryClinical psychologyAnxietyWorking memoryExecutive dysfunctionNeuropsychological testAudiologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Cognition has been identified as an area of priority in examining health impacts of COVID-19 infection, and evidence suggests the virus invades the brain, with potential for long-term cognitive impact. Studies utilizing screening measures have reported cognitive sequelae (e.g., attention disorder, executive dysfunction) of the post-COVID-19 condition (i.e., long-haulers). More extensive examination of cognitive difficulties via comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is critical to informing treatment for those experiencing cognitive or functional difficulties post-infection. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate cognitive resiliencies and vulnerabilities of acutely recovered COVID-19 patients, across key domains (i.e., attention, processing speed, language, visuospatial abilities, memory, executive functioning), compared to healthy controls. Participants and Methods: Adults (N=103; aged 19-85; 69.2% female) who had COVID-19 at least three months prior (n=50) and those with no history of infection (n=53) completed demographic and health questionnaires via Qualtrics, along with measures of depressive (CES-D) and anxiety (GAD-7) symptoms, the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale, and a measure of subjective cognitive difficulties (SCD-Q). Participants (n=84) completed a teleneuropsychology assessment including a short interview and battery of neuropsychological tests assessing attention (BTA, Digit Span Forward), processing speed (DKEFS Colour Naming & Word Reading, SDMT), language (FAS, Animals, NAB Naming), visuospatial abilities (JLO, RCFT Copy), verbal and visual memory (HVLT-R, NAB Shape Learning, RCFT), and executive function (DKEFS Color-Word Interference & Switching, Digit Span Backward & Sequencing, BRIEF), and including multiple measures of cognitive effort/assessment validity (RFIT, RDS), and a self-report measure of symptom validity (SIMS). T-tests were used to examine demographic and health variables between COVID-19 and control groups. MANCOVA were used to examine group differences across each cognitive domain assessed, and across cognitive effort and symptom validity tasks, while controlling for English language status. Results: Group comparisons indicated that the COVID-19 group was slightly older (mean age = 40 vs. 34 yrs.; f=-2.101, p=0.04). Those who had COVID-19 reported more difficulties completing IADLs (f=2.204; p=0.03), more depressive symptoms (f=-2.299; p=0.02), and more subjective cognitive difficulties (f=-3.886; p<0.01). Examination of cognitive performance indicated a main effect of prior infection on executive function, controlling for language status (Wilks’ /\=0.817, F(6,73)=2.733, p=0.02). Specifically, having COVID-19 was associated with worse DKEFS Colour-Word Switching performance (p=0.01) and slightly higher selfreported difficulties on the BRIEF MI (p=0.04). No other significant group differences were seen across cognitive domains. There was also a main effect of COVID-19 infection on effort and symptom validity task performance (Wilks’ /\=0.705, F(10,70)=2.923, p<0.01). Specifically, prior infection was associated with higher SIMS Neurologic Impairment (p<0.01) and Amnestic Disorders (p<0.01) subscale scores, and paradoxically, slightly higher RFIT combined scores (p=0.02). Conclusions: Interestingly, results indicate a significant role for subjective cognitive complaints and potential exaggeration of cognitive symptoms post-COVID-19 infection, in the absence of differences in objective performance in most cognitive domains. While subtle differences are seen on some executive function measures, mean group differences are small, and in the context of higher SIMS subscale scores, may not be readily interpretable. Studies employing similarly comprehensive neuropsychological assessments including validity measures in larger samples are needed to further disambiguate potential objective cognitive performance decrements from subjectively experienced difficulties.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207