Relationship of subjective and objective cognition with post-stroke mood differs between early and long-term stroke
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract Background Depression and anxiety affects 1 in 3 stroke survivors. Performance on standardized objective cognitive tests and self-reported subjective cognitive complaints are associated with concurrent depression and anxiety, but it is unknown whether and how objective and subjective cognition relate to longer-term emotional outcomes. Method N = 99 stroke survivors ( M age = 68.9, SD = 13.1; Median NIHSS = 5) from the OX-CHRONIC cohort completed measures of depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS), objective cognition (Oxford Cognitive Screen) and subjective cognitive complaints (Cognitive Failures Questionnaire) at 6-months (Time 1), at ∼4.5 years (Time 2) and ∼5.5 years (Time 3) post-stroke. The contribution of objective and subjective cognition to depression and anxiety was determined via mixed-effects models. Results We found no evidence that age, stroke severity, years of education, and participant sex related to changes in HADS-Depression or HADS-Anxiety scores. Objective cognitive impairments at Time 1 ( b = -0.79, p < .05) and increases in subjective cognitive complaints at Time 3 ( b = 0.77, p < .05) related to increased HADS-Depression scores (Marginal R 2 = 0.22). Only increases in subjective cognitive complaints at Time 3 ( b = 0.96, p < .05) related to increased HADS-Anxiety scores (Marginal R 2 = 0.20). When conducting models in reverse, HADS-Depression and HADS-Anxiety scores did not reciprocally explain changes in subjective cognitive complaints. Conclusions Objective cognitive abilities are more strongly associated with depression at 6-months post-stroke, while subjective cognitive complaints are more relevant to both long-term post-stroke depression and anxiety.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 81 · Cited by 14
- Authors
- Kusec, A., & Demeyere, N.
- Affiliations
- John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kusec, Andrea
- Venue
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-10-22
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1651-1672
- ISSN
- 0920-1637 (ISSN-L)
- 1385-4046
- 1744-4144
- OpenAlex
- W4403699742
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Stroke Association (SA PPA 18/, 32, 24)
- National Institute for Health Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Keywords
- stroke, post-stroke depression, post-stroke anxiety, objective cognitive impairment, cognitive failure, long-term stroke outcomes, early post-stroke period, reciprocal effects, stroke survivors
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Cognition, Depression, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Stroke, Cognitive Dysfunction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review