The impact of frailty on cognitive outcomes in elderly patients with post-stroke subjective cognitive complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: Frailty delineates a state of poor health characterized by the accumulation of age-related health deficits, and was associated with cognitive decline in patients with subjective cognitive complaints (SCC). However, whether cognitive recovery is related to frailty in elderly patients with post-stroke SCC remained unknown. This study investigated cognitive outcomes in patients with SCC within 1 year after stroke, identified the relationship between frailty and cognitive recovery, and determined factors associated with cognitive recovery. Methods: Patients over the age of 60 with a clinical diagnosis of post-stroke SCC were included in this study, who had evidence of cognitive deficits, including Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) = 0.5, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score < 26, and Mini-Mental State Examination score > 17 (illiterate) or > 20 (primary school) or > 24 (junior school or above). A 32-item frailty index (FI) was operationalized using various data at baseline to measure frailty. Neuropsychological assessments were conducted at two time points: at baseline, which occurred within 2 weeks to 6 months of the stroke onset, and at the six-month follow-up. Cognitive recovery was operationalized as unimpaired cognition (MoCA score≥26 and CDR = 0) after 6 months. Factors associated with recovery were defined through logistic regression analysis. Results: After 6 months, 414 patients completed the follow-up with 53 (12.80%) presenting cognitive recovery. Contrary to expectations, frailty at baseline was not associated with cognitive recovery in patients with post-stroke SCC. A smaller proportion of women, higher baseline MoCA scores, and thalamus lesions were independently associated with high chance of cognitive recovery. Conclusion: This study found no association between baseline frailty and cognitive recovery at 6 months in post-stroke SCC patients. However, sex, higher baseline MoCA scores, and thalamic lesions independently predict cognitive function recovery in patients with SCC after stroke, which may influence the effectiveness of intervention measures.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".