MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406992840 · doi:10.1161/str.56.suppl_1.wmp41

Abstract WMP41: Evaluation of a Digital Cognitive Self-Assessment Method for Post-Stroke Cognitive Decline

2025· article· en· W4406992840 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antara Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Cognitive declineCognitionCognitive impairmentCognitive Assessment SystemGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDementiaPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Post-stroke cognitive decline (PSCD) is a common complication of strokes, and early assessment is crucial. However, outpatient cognitive assessment protocols are inconsistent, leading to missed diagnoses of PSCD. A potential solution is the XpressO application, introduced in 2023 by the creators of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Because XpressO is self-paced, it can be completed by patients while waiting for an appointment and hence can assess cognition without impacting clinic workflow. Hypothesis: This study aims to investigate the feasibility of using the XpressO online self-administered cognitive assessment and compare its ability to detect PSCD with the MoCA short form (MoCA-sf) at our out-patient stroke clinic. Methods: Patients at the clinic with a history of ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes were included. We used <12 as the cutoff to determine low performance on the MOCA-sf. After their clinic visit, participants consented and completed a screening survey on stroke risk factors, followed by both the MoCA-sf and XpressO assessments. Completion times for both assessments were recorded, and results were analyzed using R Studio. Results: We enrolled 32 patients and 32 completed the assessment. The results of this study found a moderate correlation between Xpresso and MOCA-sf (ρ = 0.645, p = 6.70e-05). When stratified by cognitive function, no significant correlation was observed between XpressO and higher MoCA-sf (≥12) scores (ρ = 0.128, p = 0.691). The average time to complete the assessment was 6.63 minutes for MOCA –sf and 6.28 minutes for Xpresso. This difference was not significant. However, when stratified by cognitive function, there was a significant difference in completion time between XpressO (4.43 minutes) and MoCA-sf (5.83 minutes). Conclusion: The results suggest that XpressO is better at detecting severe cognitive decline but is less sensitive to milder impairments. Time to complete each test differed significantly only in patients with higher cognitive function, with XpressO being faster than MoCA in this group. XpressO’s lack of significant correlation with higher MoCA-sf scores makes it less suitable as a standalone tool for PSCD screening in outpatient stroke clinics. XpressO can be used to identify patients at risk for severe PSCD, but higher XpressO scores should not eliminate the possibility of PSCD in patients.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207