Cognitive Recovery After Out‐of‐Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Insights Into Improvement Over 6 Months and the Role of Arrest Duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Although resuscitation advancements have increased survival, many survivors suffer cognitive impairments that affect their quality of life. Most research has focused on neurological outcomes, whereas little attention has been paid to cognitive function. The aim is to investigate the proportion of cognitive impairment in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at discharge and 6 months after cardiac arrest and to investigate the association between the duration of cardiac arrest and level of cognitive function. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 184 survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment screening tool. Duration of cardiac arrest was defined by no flow, low flow, and time to return of spontaneous circulation. Multiple logistic regression analysis provided odds ratios (OR) and CI. RESULTS: Of 184 survivors assessed, 26% had normal cognitive function at discharge, increasing to 67% at 6 months (n=149). Median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score improved from 23 (Q25-Q75: 20-26) to 26 (Q25-Q75: 24-28). At 6 months, adjusted ORs per minute were 1.03 (95% CI, 1.00-1.07) for low flow and 1.03 (95% CI, 1.00-1.07) for time to return of spontaneous circulation, whereas associations at discharge were near null (aOR≈0.99). No significant association was found either at discharge or follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive function improved considerably within 6 months following cardiac arrest, with the proportion of patients exhibiting normal cognitive function increasing from 26% to 67%. This study found no association between the duration of cardiac arrest and cognitive function.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".