MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406050573 · doi:10.1002/alz.091999

Cognitive profile of post‐COVID19 syndrome patients after cognitive rehabilitation on a six‐month follow‐up study in a public Brazilian center

2024· article· en· W4406050573 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raphael Ribeiro Spera, Raphael de Luca e Tuma, Júlia Chartouni Rodrigues, Satiko Andrezza Takano Peixoto, Adalberto Studart‐Neto, Eliane Correa Miotto, Artur Martins Coutinho, Sônia Maria Dozzi Brucki

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionRehabilitationCognitive rehabilitation therapyNeuropsychologyPopulationDementiaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive testMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryCognitive impairmentDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID19 syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms that occur within 3 months of the onset of COVID19 acute phase and last at least 2 months. In the past 3 years, cognitive impairment has frequently been associated with COVID19 with descriptions of attentional, executive, memory, and language disorders. Many studies have assessed these cognitive disturbances using online and telephone tests, often in isolated interviews on a cross-sectional design in high-income countries. Few studies evaluated the role of cognitive rehabilitation in this situation. METHOD: Objective: To characterize the cognitive profile and psychological batteries of this population pre-and post-cognitive rehabilitation after 6 months. We selected patients younger than 65 years of age with COVID19 and cognitive symptoms for more than 3 and less than 6 months and no records of previous neurodegenerative or severe psychiatric diseases. They were evaluated 3 times (0, 3, and 6 months) with cognitive battery tests and questionnaires and later by a neuropsychologist for evaluation and cognitive training. RESULT: 46 patients were recruited; 41 matched the inclusion criteria and were referred to cognitive rehabilitation. 33 finished the third medical assessment. General and demographic data are shown in Table 1. Cognitive assessment in the first evaluation is demonstrated in Table 2. Only 32% of the sample had an unremarkable evaluation, and 68% were classified as having Cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND). Table 3 demonstrates patients that completed the follow-up and the changes in cognitive tests at 6 months after rehabilitation, showing a statistically significant (p<0,05) improvement on some specific tests and questionnaires: Forward digit span, delayed memory on brief cognitive screening battery, lexical fluency (F-A-S), Boston naming test-15, cognitive function instrument, geriatric anxiety inventory, and geriatric depression scale. CONCLUSION: Post-COVID-19 syndrome and cognitive impairment are relatively common also in mild infection and healthy adult patients. After cognitive rehabilitation, we depicted significant results in attention, episodic memory, verbal fluency, and psychiatric symptoms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19→French-language works237,207→