[Results of the evaluation of cognitive functions in acute haemorrhagic stroke].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of neurocognitive impairment subsequent to haemorrhagic stroke is notably high, thus constituting a significant predictor of survival and functionality. To date, however, there has been a paucity of studies that have described the profile of specific cognitive impairments in patients suffering from haemorrhagic strokes. The objective of the present study is twofold: firstly, to analyse in detail cognitive impairment after haemorrhagic stroke; secondly, to investigate the improvement in cognitive function and to determine its association with potential prognostic factors. The present pilot study comprised 17 haemorrhagic stroke patients who underwent a detailed cognitive assessment on day 14 and 3 months after the haemorrhage using the Montreal Cognitive Test, Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test, Letter Fluency and Semantic Fluency Tests, Number Span Test and CANTAB. At baseline, 18.8% of patients exhibited minor neurocognitive impairment, while 43.8% demonstrated major neurocognitive impairment. A number of significant changes were observed between the two time points in spatial-visual abilities, executive functions, attention/concentration, short-term memory and orientation. A subsequent investigation into the laterality of the haemorrhage revealed a significant discrepancy, as determined by the t-test results. Specifically, the right hemisphere haemorrhage exhibited a reduced degree of cognitive impairment. Among the factors influencing improvement, a significant correlation was identified between residual bleeding and perifocal edema size as seen on the 3rd month CT. The findings of our subsequent study demonstrated considerable neurocognitive and domain-specific impairments subsequent to haemorrhagic stroke. It is important to note that improvement was observed in several cognitive domains three months after the event, and we were able to identify prognostic factors influencing recovery. It is hypothesised that these findings may inform the design of rehabilitation programmes. This is due to the fact that they provide clinicians with a more precise understanding of the cognitive status of patients suffering from post-haemorrhagic 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".