MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410697326 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.049217

StrokeCog-15 Is an Efficient Neuropsychological Battery to Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Chronic Stroke

2025· article· en· W4410697326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren L. Drag, Michael Mlynash, Alperen Aslan, Muhith Musabbir, Amy Bradley, Maarten G. Lansberg, Stuart M. Allan, Nima Aghaeepour, Craig J. Smith, Marion S. Buckwalter

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford UniversityFondation LeducqAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineInterquartile rangeCognitionNeuropsychologyStroke (engine)Neuropsychological assessmentEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performancePhysical medicine and rehabilitationCohortExecutive functionsAudiologyPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Poststroke cognitive impairment can significantly impact functional outcomes and quality of life. While comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations are valuable in characterizing this impairment, their time-intensive nature is not always feasible. Thus, we set out to develop a brief cognitive battery that is sensitive to poststroke cognitive impairment. METHODS: Neuropsychological testing was completed in a validation sample of 126 participants with chronic ischemic stroke (median days since stroke, 337 [interquartile range, 235-1057]) as part of StrokeCog, a prospective observational cohort study. This comprehensive 60-minute cognitive battery contained 9 tests covering 5 cognitive domains. A partial least square regression analysis informed the selection of a brief, 15-minute battery of 4 tests (StrokeCog-15) covering 4 cognitive domains: language, memory, working memory, and processing speed/executive functioning. We then compared StrokeCog-15 with Montreal Cognitive Assessment and an established 30-minute battery in its ability to detect cognitive impairment as identified by the comprehensive battery. Finally, we assessed the utility of StrokeCog-15 in an external validation sample of 61 participants (median days since stroke, 210 [interquartile range, 193-230]) enrolled in the parallel Stroke-IMPaCT study (Stroke-Immune Mediated Pathways and Cognitive Trajectory). RESULTS: Cognitive impairment was common, occurring in 50% (n=61) and 66% (n=40) of the 2 cohorts. Deficits occurred most frequently in the memory and processing speed/executive functioning domains. In the derivation sample, StrokeCog-15 demonstrated high sensitivity (0.97) and adequate specificity (0.78) in detecting cognitive impairment on the comprehensive battery, outperforming both Montreal Cognitive Assessment (sensitivity, 0.77; specificity, 0.73) and the 30-minute battery (sensitivity, 0.97; specificity, 0.35). StrokeCog-15 similarly demonstrated high sensitivity (0.93) and adequate specificity (0.67) in the validation sample. CONCLUSIONS: A brief 15-minute battery of tests has high sensitivity to detect cognitive impairment as identified on a longer neuropsychological test battery. StrokeCog-15 assesses multiple cognitive domains commonly impacted by stroke and represents an efficient yet effective means to identify chronic poststroke cognitive impairment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.318 · 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