MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Brain fog assessment in patients recovered from COVID-19 in China: a development and validation study

2024· dataset· en· W6958458847 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploratory factor analysisConfirmatory factor analysisDiscriminant validityScale (ratio)PsychometricsReliability (semiconductor)CognitionItem analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the widespread emergence and persistence of brain fog has led to a decline in people’s productivity and quality of life. However, the clinical characteristics of COVID-19-associated brain fog are unclear, and standardized assessments are lacking. This study aims to develop a scale for brain fog assessment and support clinical practice and research. The 17-item Brain Fog Assessment (BFA) scale was developed using a standardized methodology, including literature review, focus group discussions (FGDs), expert evaluation, and psychometric validation. Eighteen potential items were generated following the literature review. These items were subsequently refined during FGDs, which included input from patients, caregivers, and multidisciplinary experts in neurology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychology. After thorough deliberation and expert evaluation, the item pool was finalized into a 17-item scale. We recruited 1,325 patients recovered from COVID-19 from Chinese communities. Psychometric properties were assessed by reliability and validity analysis. Exploratory factor analysis of the BFA scale revealed a three-factor mode comprising ‘cognitive decline’ (nine items), ‘confusion − disorientation’ (five items), and ‘fatigue’ (three items). The internal consistency of each factor was strong (Cronbach’s α: 0.82–0.92). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fit, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the scale were satisfactory. The test-retest reliability was strong (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84). Criterion-related validity analysis showed a strong correlation to the Wood Mental Fatigue Inventory (r = 0.70, p < 0.001). Individuals with a higher BFA score tended to score lower on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (r = −0.23, p = 0.015). We established a novel BFA scale to quantify multiple clinical aspects of COVID-19-associated brain fog. Using the BFA scale, fatigue and declining performance in memory, attention, and thought were identified as the main symptoms of COVID-19-associated brain fog. This scale has potential implications for disease monitoring and therapy development for individuals with COVID-19-associated brain fog.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→