Prevalence of Cognitive Impairment and Its Risk Factors in Patients with COVID-19: A Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment is a recognized consequence of COVID-19, persisting long after recovery. This study investigates the prevalence and risk factors associated with cognitive impairment in post-COVID-19 patients. Objectives: The present study aimed to assess cognitive function at three months and one year post-hospitalization using the blind montreal cognitive assessment (blind MoCA) and analyze its correlation with demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted on 260 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Cognitive function was assessed using the blind MoCA, and statistical analyses, including t-tests, ANOVA, and correlation analysis, were performed to identify significant predictors of cognitive decline. Results: Cognitive scores significantly declined from three months (19.37 ± 1.54) to one year (18.85 ± 1.67) (P = 0.0001). Older age, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatinine levels, psychiatric history, hypertension, and severe pulmonary involvement were associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Conclusions: Post-COVID-19 cognitive impairment worsens over time and is influenced by inflammation, oxygenation, and comorbidities. Early intervention strategies, including cognitive rehabilitation and monitoring of high-risk individuals, are essential to mitigate long-term cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".