MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404527826 · doi:10.2196/preprints.59572

Factors Influencing Poststroke Cognitive Dysfunction: Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)

2024· preprint· en· W4404527826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wu Zhou, Haixia Feng, Hui Sun, Q. Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintCross-sectional studyCognitionPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) is a common and debilitating complication that affects stroke survivors, impacting memory, attention, and executive function. Despite its prevalence, the factors contributing to PSCI remain unclear, with limited insights into how demographic and clinical variables influence cognitive outcomes. OBJECTIVE This study investigates the incidence of cognitive impairment in patients with stroke and examines key demographic and clinical factors, such as age, gender, and education level, which contribute to cognitive decline. The aim is to provide a deeper understanding of PSCI to inform early intervention strategies for improving patient outcomes. METHODS A cross-sectional study was conducted on 305 patients with ischemic stroke admitted to Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, from January 2019 to September 2022. Cognitive function was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) within 72 hours of hospital admission. Demographic information, including age, gender, and education level, were collected. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square tests, independent t tests, and multivariate regression to assess the relationship between cognitive function and key variables. Pearson correlation analysis explored associations among age, education, and MMSE scores. RESULTS Among the 305 patients with stroke, 16.7% (n=51) were diagnosed with cognitive impairment based on MMSE scores. The prevalence of cognitive impairment was slightly higher in males (17.6%, n=159) than females (15.8%, n=146), but this difference was not statistically significant. A strong negative correlation was found between MMSE scores and age (r=–0.32; P<.01), indicating that older patients had lower cognitive function. Education level showed a positive correlation with MMSE scores (r=0.41; P<.01), with patients with higher educational attainment demonstrating better cognitive outcomes. Cognitive function showed a marked decline in patients older than 60 years, particularly in domains such as memory, attention, and language skills. CONCLUSIONS This study confirms that age and education are significant factors in determining cognitive outcomes after stroke. The results align with existing literature showing that cognitive function declines with age, while higher educational attainment serves as a protective factor. The findings suggest that individuals with greater cognitive reserve, often linked to higher education, are better equipped to cope with the impact of brain injury. However, the study’s reliance on MMSE may have limited its ability to detect domain-specific impairments. Future studies should consider using more sensitive cognitive tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of PSCI. Cognitive impairment is prevalent among stroke survivors, with age and education level being key factors influencing outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of early detection and targeted interventions to mitigate cognitive decline. Further research with larger samples and more sensitive cognitive assessments is needed to fully understand PSCI and improve rehabilitation strategies for patients with stroke.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.326
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207