A Comparative Study on Cognitive Assessment in Cerebellar and Supratentorial Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to understand the cognitive profiles of cerebellar infarction patients and compare them to those with supratentorial infarctions, particularly frontal infarctions. This current study also aims to find reliable assessment tools for detecting cognitive impairment in cerebellar infarction patients. A total of fifty cerebellar infarction patients, sixty supratentorial infarction patients, and thirty-nine healthy controls were recruited. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III), and Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome scale (CCAS-s) were used to assess global cognitive function. An extensive neuropsychological assessment battery was also tested to evaluate the characteristics of each cognitive domain. To assess the features of cognitive function, a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation tool was also utilized. The cerebral infarction patients demonstrated cognitive impairment comparable to those with frontal infarcts, notably characterized by disturbance in attention and executive function. However, the degree of cognitive impairment was comparatively milder in cerebellar infarction patients. Furthermore, the patients in the cerebellar group had worse scores in the ACE-III and CCAS-s compared to healthy controls. The two assessments also demonstrated a significant area under the curve values, indicating their effectiveness in distinguishing cognitive impairment in cerebellar infarctions. In conclusion, cognitive impairment in a cerebellar infarction resembles frontal lobe dysfunction but is generally mild. It can be accurately assessed using the ACE-III and CCAS-s scales.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".