Impaired Cognition and Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes: Are They Related?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stroke survivors who exhibit impaired cognition at admission to inpatient rehabilitation may experience participation challenges and poorer functional outcomes than those without impaired cognition. Differences in functional outcomes between stroke survivors with and without impaired cognition may be attributed to age, level of cognitive impairment, and severity of stroke. Materials and Methods: A retrospective secondary data analysis was conducted using health-related administrative data acquired from a Southwestern Ontario hospital’s stroke rehabilitation database. The aim was to explore potential linkages between post-stroke impaired cognition and functional gains, rehabilitation stays, and living settings after discharge from rehabilitation. Results: An aggregate sample of 393 males and 314 females subclassified as experiencing mild, moderate, and severe stroke was analyzed. At inpatient rehabilitation admission, 21.5% (n = 152) of these patients had no impaired cognition, 33.7% (n = 238) had mild impaired cognition, 22.2% (n = 157) had moderate impaired cognition, and 22.6% (n = 160) had severe impaired cognition. Cognitively impaired stroke patients were significantly (p 0.001) older, had (mostly) moderate to severe stroke with significantly (p = 0.012) more moderate cognitive impairment, had significantly (p 0.001) longer rehabilitation stays, and a high propensity for being discharged to longer-term care facilities compared to non-cognitively impaired patients. Conclusion: Presence of significant dissimilarity in rehabilitation stays and post-discharge destinations among stroke survivors with and without cognitive impairment is attributed to the age of the patient, level of cognitive impairment, and rigorous rehabilitation interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".