What does cognitive screening reveal about early cognitive performance following endovascular clot retrieval and intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Little is known regarding cognitive outcomes following treatment with endovascular clot retrieval (ECR) and intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA). We aimed to determine if there were any differences on a measure of cognitive screening between patients treated with ECR, t-PA, and those who were managed conservatively. Methods The medical records of ischaemic stroke patients admitted to Monash Medical Centre between January 2019 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Information extracted from medical records included age, sex, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at presentation, location of occlusion, treatment type, medical history, and cognitive screening performance measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results Eighty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age = 66.5 ± 13.9; 49 male, 33 female). Patients treated with ECR performed significantly better on the MoCA (n = 36, 24.1 ± 4.3) compared to those who were managed conservatively (n = 26, 20.7 ± 5.5). Performance for patients treated with t-PA (n = 20, 23.9 ± 3.5) fell between the ECR and conservative management groups, but they did not significantly differ from either. Conclusion Our retrospective chart review found that ischaemic stroke patients treated with ECR appear to perform better on cognitive screening compared to patients who are managed conservatively. We also found that patients treated with ECR and t-PA appear to have similar cognitive screening performances in the acute stages following ischaemic stroke, although this finding is likely to have been impacted by group differences in stroke characteristics and may reflect the possibility that the ECR group performed better than expected based on their stroke severity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".