Associations of Circadian Rest-Activity Rhythms With Affect and Cognition in Community-Dwelling Stroke Survivors: An Ambulatory Assessment Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Rest-activity rhythm (RAR) is a modifiable behavioral factor associated with affect and cognition. Identifying RAR characteristics associated with affect and cognition among stroke survivors provides insight into preventing poststroke affective and cognitive impairment. Objective To examine the associations of RAR characteristics with affect and cognition among community-dwelling stroke survivors. Methods Forty participants with mild stroke (mean age = 52.8; 42.5% female; 55% White) reported their affect and cognitive complaints using ecological momentary assessment and wore an accelerometer for 7 consecutive days and completed the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery. RAR characteristics were extracted using parametric and non-parametric approaches. Multivariable linear regressions were used to identify RAR characteristics associated with affect and cognition. Results Later onset of rest ( B = 0.45; P = .008) and activity ( B = 0.36; P = .041) were positively associated with depressed affect. These associations were reversed for cheerful effect (rest onset: B = −0.42; P = .017; activity onset: B = −0.39; P = .033). Cheerful affect was also positively associated with relative amplitude (ie, distinctions in activity levels between rest and activity; B = .39; P = .030). Intra-daily variability (ie, RAR fragmentation; B = 0.35; P = .042) and later onset of activity ( B = .36; P = .048) were positively associated with cognitive complaints. Less erratic RAR was positively associated with fluid cognition ( B = 0.29; P = .036); RAR fragmentation was positively associated with crystallized cognition ( B = 0.39; P = .015). Conclusions We identified RAR correlates of affect and cognition among stroke survivors, highlighting the value of managing RAR and sleep in stroke rehabilitation. Future studies should test whether advancing the onset of rest and activity, promoting a regular active lifestyle, and improving rest and sleep in the nighttime protect stroke survivors from affective and cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".