Psychological and cognitive outcomes in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms and aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a multidimensional assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) pose not only neurological but also psychological and cognitive challenges. This study aimed to compare patients with UIA and aSAH and explore how psychological symptoms relate to their quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Between May 2023 and May 2025, 128 patients (aged 31-79, M = 53.9, SD = 7.24) were enrolled: 63 with aSAH and 65 with UIA. All aSAH patients had favourable neurological outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1). Assessment included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory - Trait (STAI-T), Beck Depression Inventory - Short Form (BDI-SF), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and WHOQOL-BREF. RESULTS: There were no significant psychological or cognitive differences between the aSAH and UIA groups; thus, they were analysed together. Compared to normative data, patients showed reduced cognitive performance and elevated depressive symptoms. Psychological well-being was the most affected QoL domain. All psychological variables negatively correlated with QoL, with anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances emerging as significant predictors in linear regression. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that emotional and sleep-related symptoms have a more substantial impact on QoL than cognitive impairment. The lack of group differences implies that psychological vulnerability may already be present before aneurysm rupture, underlining the need for early intervention. CONCLUSION: The knowledge of having an aneurysm alone places a significant psychological burden on patients even without SAH, affecting cognitive and psychological well-being and quality of life. Therefore, psychological follow-up and care of patients diagnosed with intracranial aneurysms should be a priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable because the health-related intervention was not conducted in this study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".