Cognitive impairment after intravenous thrombolysis in mild stroke: assessment of cerebral blood flow covariance network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mild stroke may lead to cognitive impairment, and it remains unclear whether intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can mitigate cognitive deficits. This study investigates whether IVT can help alleviate cognitive function impairment in patients and further explores changes in the topological properties of cerebral blood flow (CBF) networks. Methods This observational study prospectively enrolled 94 patients with acute mild ischemic stroke (44 IVT vs. 50 non-IVT) from two hospitals. A battery of neuropsychological tests and arterial spin labeling were performed to evaluate their cognitive functioning and CBF in 116 brain regions. Voxel-wise CBF was compared between patients and health controls. The CBF covariance network of patients was constructed by calculating across-subject CBF covariance among 116 brain regions. Network properties were calculated and compared between IVT and no-IVT groups. Results The mild stroke group demonstrated significantly lower Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores compared to healthy controls (p < 0.001). Patients receiving IVT showed superior performance on the Trail Making Test-B (p = 0.043), Clock Drawing Test (p = 0.001), and Verbal Fluency Test (p = 0.033). Multivariate regression analysis adjusted for covariates demonstrated significant associations between IVT and cognitive outcomes: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (β = 2.85; 95% CI, 0.64–5.13), Trail Making Test-A (β = −16.90; 95% CI, −32.89–-0.90), Trail Making Test-B (β = −43.27; 95% CI, −78.78–-7.76), Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised total recall (β = 3.57; 95% CI, 1.36–5.78), HVLT-R delayed recall (β = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.43–2.63), Clock Drawing Test (β = 7.09; 95% CI, 2.40–11.79), and Verbal Fluency Test (β = 3.00; 95% CI, 1.33–4.68). IVT patients exhibited higher small-worldness, clustering coefficient, and global efficiency of the network compared to non-IVT patients. Conclusion Intravenous thrombolysis demonstrated early cognitive benefits across multiple domains in patients with mild stroke. Improvement in the brain CBF covariance network properties may be the underlying mechanism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".