Post-COVID-19 physical and cognitive impairments and associations with quality of life: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective This study aimed to compare physical and cognitive functions between post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) participants and healthy matched controls and investigate associations between physical and cognitive impairments with quality of life. Methods Twenty-three post-COVID-19 participants and 23 age and sex-matched healthy people without a history of COVID-19 were included. Physical function was assessed using the Medical Research Council Sum Score (MRC-SS), 2 min Step Test, Modified Borg Scale, and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) Test. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making Test (TMT), and Stroop test, and the quality of life was evaluated using the Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3l) questionnaire. Assessments were performed by a physical therapist in one session. Results Mann-Whitney U test showed that in the post-COVID-19 group, compared to the control group, the number of steps in the 2 min Step Test (p < 0.001, ES = 0.57) and the scores of the SPPB (p = 0.03, ES = 0.32), MoCA (p = 0.003, ES = 0.44), Stroop test (p < 0.001, ES = 0.75), and the EQ-5D-3l visual analog scale (p = 0.027, ES = 0.32) were significantly lower. In addition, the Modified Borg Scale score (p < 0.001, ES = 0.6), TMT-A (p = 0.013, ES = 0.36) and TMT-B (p = 0.016, ES = 0.35) times, and the Stroop time (p < 0.001, ES = 0.61) were significantly higher in the post-COVID-19 group. There were no significant between-group differences in the MRC-SS score (p = 0.055, ES = 0.28). Furthermore, there were significant moderate to high associations between physical and cognitive functions and the quality of life in post-COVID-19 participants. Conclusions On average 4 months after symptomatic COVID-19, post-COVID-19 participants had significant impairments in physical and cognitive functions compared to healthy matched controls that were significantly correlated with the quality of life. These findings highlight the need for a comprehensive assessment to plan appropriate management strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".