MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401992308 · doi:10.1080/00207454.2024.2398616

Brain fog assessment in patients recovered from COVID-19 in China: a development and validation study

2024· article· en· W4401992308 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shaojiong Zhou, Jiahua Xu, Xiaoduo Liu, Aonan Li, Bo Zhao, Chaofan Geng, Tao Wei, Yunzhe Liu, Zhibin Wang, Yi Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaBeijing Municipal Science and Technology CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Quality of life (healthcare)Persistence (discontinuity)CoronavirusMedicinePsychologyDiseaseVirologyInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Outbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the widespread emergence and persistence of brain fog has led to a decline in people’s productivity and quality of life. However, the clinical characteristics of COVID-19-associated brain fog are unclear, and standardized assessments are lacking. This study aims to develop a scale for brain fog assessment and support clinical practice and research.Methods The 17-item Brain Fog Assessment (BFA) scale was developed using a standardized methodology, including literature review, focus group discussions (FGDs), expert evaluation, and psychometric validation. Eighteen potential items were generated following the literature review. These items were subsequently refined during FGDs, which included input from patients, caregivers, and multidisciplinary experts in neurology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychology. After thorough deliberation and expert evaluation, the item pool was finalized into a 17-item scale. We recruited 1,325 patients recovered from COVID-19 from Chinese communities. Psychometric properties were assessed by reliability and validity analysis.Results Exploratory factor analysis of the BFA scale revealed a three-factor mode comprising “cognitive decline” (nine items), “confusion − disorientation” (five items), and “fatigue” (three items). The internal consistency of each factor was strong (Cronbach’s α: 0.82–0.92). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fit, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the scale were satisfactory. The test-retest reliability was strong (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84). Criterion-related validity analysis showed a strong correlation to the Wood Mental Fatigue Inventory (r = 0.70, P < 0.001). Individuals with a higher BFA score tended to score lower on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (r = −0.23, P = 0.015).Conclusions We established a novel BFA scale to quantify multiple clinical aspects of COVID-19-associated brain fog. Using the BFA scale, fatigue and declining performance in memory, attention, and thought were identified as the main symptoms of COVID-19-associated brain fog. This scale has potential implications for disease monitoring and therapy development for individuals with COVID-19-associated brain fog.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207