Cognitive functioning following mild stroke in adults aged 18 to 64 years: association with participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study aims to describe objective and subjective cognitive functioning and to explore the relationship between cognition, participation, fatigue, and psychological symptoms, in adults aged 18-64 with mild stroke. METHODS: Fifty-seven adults (mean age = 52 years; 51% women) who were hospitalized after a mild stroke were recruited. They completed a short telephone cognitive assessment and online questionnaires on average six months after stroke (range: 3-13). RESULTS: Results suggest that mean scores of cognitive tests fell within the average normative range, although an underestimation of cognitive impairment cannot be ruled out. Moreover, compared to a normal distribution, a greater proportion of participants had average or below average cognitive performances. The most common subjective cognitive complaints were mental slowness (54% of sample), memory difficulties (51%), concentration difficulties 51%), and multitasking (47%). Objective cognitive performance was not associated with subjective cognitive complaints. Subjective cognitive complaints, performance on a cognitive flexibility test, and symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and fatigue significantly correlated with participation. Subjective cognitive functioning was the most significantly associated factor with participation according to regression analyses. CONCLUSION: These results raise the importance of implementing rehabilitation services that target cognitive complaints to promote better participation in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".