ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND 6-12 MONTHS QUALITY OF LIFE IN ISCHEMIC STROKE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stroke is a major contributor to deaths and disabilities worldwide. Impaired cognitive function is often found in ischemic stroke patients. Disability due to stroke causes functional impairment in various quality of life domains. Cognitive function is one of the predictors of the quality of life. There are still not many studies on cognitive impairment and quality of life in ischaemic stroke patients in Indonesia. Objective: To compare the average quality of life of 6-12 months of stroke patients at the Bethesda Hospital Yogyakarta Neurology Center based on the presence of cognitive impairment Methods: The study used a retrospective cohort study design. Subject data were obtained from the Bethesda Hospital Yogyakarta stroke registry. All risk factor data (laboratory and clinical) and medication were obtained during admission. Cognitive impairment was measured using the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT). The questionnaire used was World Health Organization Quality Of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF). Results: From 113 patients, average quality of life of patients in domain 1, domain 2, and domain 3 was not significant (p > 0.05). A significant mean difference between cognitive impairment and quality of life was found in domain 4 (p = 0.025). Analysis of the confounding variables showed that a history of hypertension, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, diabetes, and atrial fibrillation also had an effect on the patient's quality of life. Conclusion: Cognitive impairment does not have a significant effect on quality of life, especially in the domains of physical health, psychological health, and social relations, but has a significant effect on the environmental health domain of ischemic stroke 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".