MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095872065

Factors Related to Long-Term Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment in Young Adult Ischemic Stroke

2016· article· en· W7095872065 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionYoung adultCognitive impairmentStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeMontreal Cognitive AssessmentOutcome (game theory)Cognitive decline
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Post-stroke cognitive impairment is common and a decisive prognostic factor. However, few studies have re-ported on post-stroke cognition in young adults, especially long-term cognition. This study was designed to investigate the influence of baseline factors, treatments, and functional outcome on the long-term cognitive outcome in young adults with ischemic stroke. Material/Methods: Consecutive patients aged 18–45 years between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2010, with a first-ever isch-emic stroke, were recruited for cognitive assessment by telephone from December 10 to December 31, 2013 using modified versions of “Telephone Instrument for Cognitive Status ” (TICS-m) scale. The relationship of cog-nitive impairment with baseline factors, treatments, and functional outcome were evaluated. Results: A total of 350 patients with an average age of 41.0±6.8 years (69.7 % males and 30.3 % females) were reviewed. The average follow-up period was 5.8±3.2 years, and cognitive impairment existed in 39.4 % of patients at fol-low-up. Stroke severity on admission, functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS>2) at discharge, left an-terior circulation syndrome, and stroke recurrence were markedly associated with post-stroke cognitive impair-ment (all P<0.01). Post-stroke cognition was also significantly related to mRS at follow-up (r=–0.563, P<0.001). Conclusions: Post-stroke cognition was related to functional outcome: hence, treatment directed toward reducing function-

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207