MoCA Domain-Specific Pattern of Cognitive Impairment in Stroke Patients Attending Intensive Inpatient Rehabilitation: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A domain-specific perspective to cognitive functioning in stroke patients may predict their cognitive recovery over time and target stroke rehabilitation intervention. However, data about domain-specific cognitive impairment after stroke are still scarce. This study prospectively investigated the domain-specific pattern of cognitive impairments, using the classification proposed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), in a cohort of 49 stroke patients at admission (T0), discharge (T1), and six-month follow-up (T2) from subacute intensive rehabilitation. The predictive value of T0 cognitive domains cognitive impairment at T1 and T2 was also investigated. Patients’ cognitive functioning at T0, T1, and T2 was assessed through the MoCA domains for executive functioning, attention, language, visuospatial, orientation, and memory. Different evolutionary trends of cognitive domain impairments emerged across time-points. Patients’ impairments in all domains decreased from T0 to T1. Attention and executive impairments decreased from T0 to T2 (42.9% and 26.5% to 10.2% and 18.4%, respectively). Conversely, altered visuospatial, language, and orientation increased between T1 and T2 (16.3%, 36.7%, and 40.8%, respectively). Additionally, patients’ global cognitive functioning at T1 was predicted by the language and executive domains in a subacute phase (p = 0.031 and p = 0.001, respectively), while in the long term, only attention (p = 0.043) and executive (p = 0.019) domains intervened. Overall, these results confirm the importance of a domain-specific approach to target cognitive recovery across time in stroke patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".