Importance of Retesting for the Final Diagnosis of Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment.

Background and Objectives: Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) has been defined as all problems in cognitive function that occur following a stroke. Studies published thus far on the prevalence of PSCI and post-stroke dementia (PSD) have shown conflicting estimates. The aim of this study was screening for cognitive impairment (CogI) in patients with an ischaemic stroke and finding the relationship between CogI (and its changes) and cardiovascular risk factors and imaging procedures-CT/MRI. Materials and Methods: We prospectively included patients with an ischaemic stroke admitted in the period from October 2019 to May 2022. In this period, 1328 patients were admitted, 305 of whom met the established inclusion criteria and underwent an examination of cognitive functions using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Of these, 50 patients appeared for the control examination after 6 months. Results: In the retested group, CogI at discharge was diagnosed in 37 patients (74%). In follow-up testing after 6 months, CogI was present in 30 patients (60%). Only arterial hypertension (OR: 15; 95% CI; Pearson r: 0.001), lower education level (less than 13 years) (OR: 9.7; 95% CI 2.0-48.5; Pearson r: 0.002), and higher age were significantly associated with CogI after stroke. Conclusions: We established the prevalence of CogI and its course after 6 months in a well-defined group of patients after a mild ischaemic stroke (mean NIHSS: 2 and mean mRS: 1 at the discharge). Our results show that the prevalence of CogI after an ischaemic stroke at discharge is relatively high (74%), and it tends to be a spontaneous reduction. Cognitive functions were changed in 35% of patients. The definition of PSCI was completed in only 24% of individuals. Only an examination several months after a stroke can give us more accurate information about the true prevalence of persistent CogI after a stroke.

Psychotic Episode and Schizophrenia in Slovakian Narcolepsy Database.

Narcolepsy type 1 (NT1), a central disorder of hypersomnolence, is associated with mood, anxiety or hyperactivity mental disorders. Association with psychotic episode or schizophrenia is rare and could be the source of diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties. Their frequency in the national narcolepsy database has not been systematically studied. The aim of the presented study was to calculate the frequency of NT1 patients diagnosed with psychosis and/or schizophrenia, to identify clinical characteristics of these cases, and to look for narcoleptic and psychotic symptoms during re-evaluation years later. We identified three (4%) cases diagnosed with a psychotic episode in the course of NT1. They were diagnosed with NT1 by age ≤18 years. In the re-evaluation (mean follow-up 9.8 years), we identified one case with a dual diagnosis of NT1 and schizophrenia; two cases were diagnosed with a solitary psychotic episode in the course of NT1. NT1 patients diagnosed in the age ≤18 years are at higher risk of psychotic episode, and this may be related to higher vulnerability during the ongoing neurodevelopmental period. Comorbid schizophrenia with NT1 in the Slovakian Narcolepsy Database was within the prevalence expected in the general population. The solitary psychotic episode in the course of NT1 did not reduce the possibility of subsequent symptomatic treatment afterwards.

Comparison in detection of prodromal Parkinson's disease patients using original and updated MDS research criteria in two independent cohorts.

INTRODUCTION: MDS research criteria for prodromal Parkinson's disease (pPD) were published in 2015 and updated in 2019. We aimed to determine the difference in pPD patient detection rates in two cohorts recruited via gastrointestinal symptoms (PARCAS study) and the presence of a probable REM sleep behaviour disorder (PDBIOM study) using the original and updated criteria. METHODS: We evaluated all risk and prodromal markers, except genetic testing, plasma urate and physical inactivity, in both cohorts and DaT scan, diabetes mellitus type II and cognitive deficit in the PARCAS cohort. Thresholds of 50% probability for possible pPD and 80% for probable pPD were used. RESULTS: PPD status as identified by the original/updated criteria showed differences for probable pPD (n = 8/9; original/updated criteria) and possible pPD (n = 9/13) in the PARCAS cohort (total n = 158), as well as for probable pPD (n = 19/21) and possible pPD (n = 6/3) in the PDBIOM cohort (total n = 48). A high concordance rate was found between the two criteria sets (p < 0.001 for all groups). CONCLUSION: All probable pPD cases remained in the same category after evaluation with both criteria; three possible pPD cases based on the original criteria exceeded the threshold for probable pPD based on the updated criteria, and five possible new pPD cases were detected, with only one shift in the opposite direction. The updated MDS pPD research criteria tend to identify more patients as positive, yet their accuracy needs to be determined in prospective studies.

The utility of set-loss error scores in the general population.

Although the measurement of cognitive performance usually relies on achievement sum scores, a growing body of research suggests that the analysis of errors made may have a predictive validity beyond that provided by the number of items correct. This study examined the validity related to one such kind of error scores--the set-loss errors--in the general population of 8- to 11-year-old children. Set-loss errors (also called rule violations) can be conceptualized as a breakdown in the adherence to task-specific rules, and in clinical populations, the propensity to make these errors has shown some specificity for identifying disorders connected with frontal lobes dysfunction. The results, however, indicate that set-loss errors derived from distinct tests could not be effectively explained by a single latent dimension; hence, they do not tap a single construct that could be called set loss or the ability to maintain set. At the same time, there were only few weak associations between various kinds of error scores as well as between the set-loss error scores and relevant constructs such as the ability to learn, attentional control, working memory, fluid and crystallized intelligence, and executive functions-related real-world behaviors, indicating an overrepresentation of construct-irrelevant variance in these kinds of scores. These indications were further accentuated by the analysis of sensitivity and specificity where any elevated number of set-loss error scores was unable to classify individuals on theoretically relevant constructs beyond chance levels. The evidence thus speaks against the use of set-loss error scores in the general population of 8- to 11-year-old children.