MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404293307 · doi:10.1080/23279095.2024.2422926

Measuring subjective cognitive complaints with covid-19 brain fog using the subjective scale to investigate cognition (SSTICS)

2024· article· en· W4404293307 on OpenAlexaff
Émmanuel Stip, Alyazia Abdulla Alkaabi, Mohammed AlAhbabi, Fadwa Al Mugaddam, Ovidiu Lungu, Marwan Faisal Albastaki, Saleh Alhammadi, Karim Abdel Aziz

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Neuropsychology Adult · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Scale (ratio)PsychologyCognitive psychology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineNeuroscienceCartographyGeographyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term "brain fog" has emerged from the observations of neuropsychiatric conditions present in post-COVID-19 infections. This is characterized by concentration and memory problems, selective attention disorders and difficulties in executive functions, yet it is unclear how long these deficits may persist and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. Therefore, there is a need to properly evaluate these cognitive complaints using an assessment tool that specifies their intensity and nature. Our primary objective was to explore subjective perceptions of cognitive functioning in COVID-19-associated with brain fog using a tool that was previously validated for assessing subjective cognitive complaints. A total of 68 participants were recruited and the Subjective Scale to Investigate Cognition (SSTICS) was used to assess cognitive complaints. This was the first time that the SSTICS was used for this purpose in subjects with COVID-19. In addition, participants were administered a questionnaire assessing for the presence of various symptoms, as well as COVID-19 clinical parameters. The neuropsychological basis for the construct of the SSTICS was related to the cognitive complaints expressed by participants. A reliability analysis of our sample indicated a high degree of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha= 0.951). Associations between various SSTICS scores and COVID-related symptomatology and the differences between group of participants who reported cognitive complaints ("complainers") and those who did not were assessed. We performed an exploratory factorial analysis based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Based on their distribution, participants were grouped into: "good functioning" - scores 0-9 (35.3%); "medium functioning" - scores 14-23 (25%); and "poor functioning" - scores 26-71 (39.7%). The mean SSTICS score was 20.59 (SD 16.61) and correlated with the quarantine duration and loss of smell. Complainers differed significantly from non-complainers in the total number of symptoms, the quarantine duration and the presence/absence of specific symptoms, such as loss of smell, tiredness and aches/pains. Our study showed that >10% of patients reported subjective cognitive complaints following COVID-19, with most reporting mild or serious cognitive complaints, mostly within the domains of memory, attention, language, executive functioning or praxis.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Neuropsychology AdultSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207