THE INFLUENCE OF COGNITIVE RESERVE ON FUNCTIONAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE ABILITY POST-STROKE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Cognitive reserve (CR) is a feature of brain structure and function said to mediate the effects of brain pathology or injury on clinical outcomes. Extensively studied in neurodegeneration, CR demonstrates increasing applicability to acute neurological injury, such as stroke, but has not been comprehensively explored. Here we report stroke outcomes at baseline and 3-months for those with low and high CR.Methods: Thirty-three acute, first-ever stroke patients admitted to a specialised stroke unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia, were assessed on CR, cognition, function, quality-of-life and self-efficacy at baseline. Participants were dichotomised into high or low CR-groups based on Cognitive Reserve Index questionnaire criteria. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (upper-limb) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were assessed at baseline to describe clinical characteristics of the high/low CR groups. Outcomes measured disability, independence, self-efficacy, and quality-of-life.Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for cognitive ability, where those with high CR (M= 23.5, SD= 4.8) significantly outperformed those with low CR (M= 19, SD= 1; p=.001). Preliminary 3-month data shows a trend for the low CR group to demonstrate poorer outcomes (M difference from baseline) on measures of independence (M= -21.5), disability (M= +0.17), quality-of-life (M= +14.8), and self-efficacy (M= -19.7).Conclusions: While current findings are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution, CR may be an important mediator of stroke outcomes. Importantly, CR is modifiable across the lifespan and might demonstrate utility for primary/secondary prevention, and/or facilitate better prediction of capacity for recovery following stroke.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".