Cognitive and psychological functioning in individuals with long COVID: a comparative cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although several studies have examined cognitive and psychological functioning in long COVID, few have included appropriate comparison groups and utilized both subjective and objective measures. First, this study compared objective cognitive performance and self-reported cognitive and psychological symptoms across individuals with long COVID, those recovered without persistent symptoms, and a Control Group with no history of COVID-19 infection. Second, the relationship between sociodemographic and disease characteristics and cognitive and psychological outcomes was explored in the Long COVID Group (LCG). Third, the association between cognitive and psychological outcomes and quality of life was examined in the LCG. METHODS: Participants included 120 adults per group. The main outcome measures were three neuropsychological tests and self-report questionnaires on cognitive functioning, anxiety, depression, and quality of life. RESULTS: Individuals with long COVID exhibited poorer attention and working memory performance, and reported higher cognitive, anxiety, and depression symptoms compared to the other groups. Within the LCG, better cognitive performance on a screening test and higher depressive symptoms were associated with poorer quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight poorer cognitive performance and higher cognitive and psychological symptoms in long COVID, suggesting the importance of comprehensive assessments and integrated rehabilitation strategies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".