Chronotype Shifts and Cognitive Performance in Stroke Survivors: Exploring the Impact of Occupational Therapy Treatment Timing on Rehabilitation Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Stroke survivors commonly report persistent sleep disruptions during rehabilitation and postrecovery. Despite little research that explores the impact of stroke on a patient's chronotype, no studies have explored the differences in cognitive performance between treatment timing fitted and nonfitted to the patient's chronotype. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the sleep chronotype in patients in the subacute poststroke period, to explore cognitive task performance differences during fitted and nonfitted hours, and to examine the relationships between sleep quality and cognitive performance. DESIGN: Cohort design. SETTING: Health care institution. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty men and women (M age = 60.2, SD = 8.6) post-first stroke. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The following measures were collected twice, during fitted and nonfitted chronotypic times: demographic surveys, the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test, Second Edition (RBMT-2), a fatigue questionnaire, and of actigraphy for 4 to 5 days. RESULTS: Stroke survivors exhibited an earlier sleep chronotype postinjury compared with preinjury. Enhanced memory (higher RBMT-2 scores) occurred during fitted hours. No significant differences emerged in executive functions, attention tasks, and MoCA scores between fitted and nonfitted hours. The Wake After Sleep Onset index correlated with the MoCA and RBMT-2 scores during fitted hours (MoCA: r = .53, p = .021; RBMT-2: r = .51, p = .027). Number of awakenings correlated with the MoCA letter task during nonfitted hours (r = .45; p = .044). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Occupational therapy practitioners should be aware of the relationship between chronotype and cognitive performance, with a focus on the importance of personalized rehabilitation strategies in stroke care. Plain-Language Summary: The timing of cognitive assessments poststroke can influence their reliability, particularly when considering a patient's chronotype (sleep cycle). For instance, if a morning person is evaluated later in the day (nonfitted to their chronotype), the results may indicate greater cognitive decline compared with scores they might achieve in the morning. In our study, we assessed cognitive performance twice: once fitted to the patient's chronotype and once not. Our findings revealed that memory function significantly improved during evaluations conducted at personalized times. This suggests that occupational therapy practitioners who evaluate patients during nonoptimal times may prescribe a more extensive rehabilitation plan than necessary.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".