Home › Research › Risk factors
[Post-stroke cognitive deficits and dementia]
Laura Gallucci, Roza M Umarova. Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique, 2021-08
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Post-stroke cognitive deficits and dementia Abstract. Prediction of stroke outcome remains challenging due to a large inter-individual variability. For a long time, research on stroke outcome has been mainly confined to post-stroke motor deficits, whereas post-stroke cognitive decline has been less investigated though being an often reason for dependency and disability. Post-stroke cognitive impairment demonstrate high inter-individual variability, which is expected to increase further due to the increasing life expectancy and number of patients with pre-stroke brain pathology and cognitive deficits. There exist different types and patterns of post-stroke cognitive impairment: i) the deficits in one or several cognitive domains meaning the variability in neuropsychological profiles; ii) the decline might vary from mild to manifested dementia comprising a wide spectrum in severity; iii) with occurrence immediately after stroke or with delayed manifestation several months later without obvious reasons. Patients at risk for post-stroke cognitive impairment cannot be reliably identified. Many factors have been shown to worsen post-stroke cognitive outcome, but their effects have been only investigated in isolation by ignoring their potential interactions. An overall model sufficiently predicting post-stroke cognitive outcome was therefore missing until now. We recently suggested that the concepts of brain reserve and cognitive reserve, which are established for neurodegeneration, may represent a valuable theoretical framework to predict stroke-induced cognitive decline and disability. Cognitive stroke outcome can be defined as a result of an interaction between brain reserve (e. g. brain volume), cognitive reserve (e. g. level of education, cognitive-stimulation leisure activities) and lesion load. Our recent findings supported this hypothesis also for functional stroke outcome. By representing a valuable model comprehensively incorporating an individual's characteristics, the concepts of brain and cognitive reserve might help in screening of risk patients, establishment of individualized therapeutic approaches, and enable knowledge transfer.
Key findings
- An overall model sufficiently predicting post-stroke cognitive outcome was therefore missing until now.
- We recently suggested that the concepts of brain reserve and cognitive reserve, which are established for neurodegeneration, may represent a valuable theoretical framework to predict stroke-induced cognitive decline and disability.
- Cognitive stroke outcome can be defined as a result of an interaction between brain reserve (e. g. brain volume), cognitive reserve (e. g. level of education, cognitive-stimulation leisure activities) and lesion load.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34291660) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Gallucci, L., & Umarova, R. M. (2021). [Post-stroke cognitive deficits and dementia]. Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique. https://doi.org/10.1024/0040-5930/a001278
Vancouver
Gallucci L, Umarova RM. [Post-stroke cognitive deficits and dementia]. Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique. 2021. doi:10.1024/0040-5930/a001278. PMID: 34291660.
BibTeX
@article{gallucci2021-34291660,
author = {Gallucci, Laura and Umarova, Roza M},
title = {{[Post-stroke cognitive deficits and dementia]}},
journal = {Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1024/0040-5930/a001278},
pmid = {34291660},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1024/0040-5930/a001278}
}
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.