The role of clinical characteristics of Lyme borreliosis in predicting cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Lyme disease is characterized by a wide polymorphism of clinical manifestations, including various lesions of the central and peripheral nervous systems. Along with neurological disorders, diverse manifestations and signs of cognitive impairments are often found. Despite the high prevalence of cognitive disorders in Lyme borreliosis, data on their frequency and risk factors are contradictory. The examination of cognitive status is still not included in the standard clinical examination of this category of patients. The aim of the study is to identify predictors that may independently influence the development of cognitive dysfunction in patients with Lyme borreliosis. Materials and methods. A prospective cohort study of 69 patients (47 females, 22 males) diagnosed with Lyme borreliosis, aged between 23 and 77 (average of 49.90 ± 16.26) years, was carried out. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was used to evaluate cognitive function. To determine the relationship between cognitive dysfunction and its potential predictors, the participants were divided into two groups: patients without cognitive impairment (n = 30) and those with cognitive dysfunction (n = 39) based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score. Results. It was found that risk factors for the development of cognitive impairment include: diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis at the age of 45.5 years and older (hazard ratio (HR) 5.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.82–14.27]; p = 0.001), presence of neuroborreliosis (HR 5.98; 95% CI [2.0–17.8]; р < 0.001), Lyme carditis (HR 8.7; 95% CI [1.04–73.06]; р = 0.021), hypertension (HR 7.19; 95% CI [2.32–22.28]; р < 0.001), anxiety disorders. Conclusions. The prospect for further research is to study and analyze the features of the correlation between cognitive and psycho-emotional disorders and the quality of life of patients with different forms and duration of Lyme borreliosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".