Deep into Cognition: The Neuropsychological Identikit of Younger and Older Individuals after COVID-19 Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on COVID-19 continues to increase daily. Cognitive sequelae associated with COVID-19 infection still draw the attention of the scientific community given the lack of consensus about their existence, etiology, characterization and reversibility. The aim of this study is to provide a neuropsychological identikit for younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. In total, 226 individuals took part in a retrospective observational study and their cognitive performance was compared across groups (younger adults vs. older adults) and time (T0, T1, T2). The results highlighted differences between younger and older adults in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) global score, as expected in consideration of the different physiological conditions of the two populations. However, memory performance highlighted the two groups as characterized by a difference in patterns of recall that may move beyond a physiological explanation and provide information about COVID-19 cognitive sequelae. This study suggests that cognitive deficits observed in COVID-19 survivors may reflect a difficulty in attention and concentration that interferes mainly with retrieval processes. This result fits well with the concept of "brain fog" typical of post-COVID-19 syndrome and may also reflect the stress experienced while facing the pandemic.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".