PREDICTORS OF COGNITIVE DETERIORATION DURING THE FIRST YEAR AFTER ISCHEMIC NON-LACUNAR STROKES IN PATIENTS WITH ATRIAL FIBRILLATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Epidemiological studies revealed that AF may be an independent predictor of cognitive impairment, including post-stroke patients. AF patients had statistically significant deterioration of cognitive functioning during the first year after ischemic strokes. However, the factors associated with cognitive deterioration during the post-stroke period in AF patients have not yet been identified. Objective: to study the factors associated with cognitive deterioration during the first year after ischemic non-lacunar strokes in patients with AF. Materials. In the final analysis, we included 65 patients with AF who had an ischemic non-lacunar stroke within the last 6 months. The cognitive assessment consisted of a Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Clock Drawing Test, and Frontal Assessment Battery. “Cognitive deterioration” was defined as ≥ 1 point decrease by any of the cognitive scales at the 12-month visit compared to the initial visit score. As predictors of cognitive deterioration, we studied socio-demographic, psycho-emotional, comorbid, neurological, functional, neuroimaging factors, lipid profile, and transthoracic echocardiographic parameters. Results. According to all of the used cognitive scales, the same factors were independent predictors of cognitive deterioration during the first year after ischemic non-lacunar strokes in patients with AF – severe leukoaraiosis (Fazekas scale score >3), reduced left ventricle ejection fraction and increased left atrium size. The optimal thresholds of left ventricle ejection fraction values for predicting cognitive deterioration, depending on the cognitive scale, were within the interval of 41–48%, whereas the optimal threshold of left atrium size for predicting cognitive deterioration, regardless of the scale used, was the same – 41 mm. Conclusions. Independent predictors of cognitive deterioration in AF patients during the first year after ischemic non-lacunar strokes are leukoaraiosis, low left ventricle ejection fraction, and high left atrium size.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".