To determine whether poorer performance on the Boston Naming Test (BNT) in individuals with transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 pathology (TDP-43+) is due to greater loss of word knowledge compared to retrieval-based deficits.

Retrospective clinical-pathologic study of 282 participants with Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic changes (ADNC) and known TDP-43 status. We evaluated item-level performance on the 60-item BNT for first and last available assessment. We fit cross-sectional negative binomial count models that assessed total number of incorrect items, number correct of responses with phonemic cue (reflecting retrieval difficulties), and number of “I don’t know” (IDK) responses (suggestive of loss of word knowledge) at both assessments. Models included TDP-43 status and adjusted for sex, age, education, years from test to death, and ADNC severity. Models that evaluated the last assessment adjusted for number of prior BNT exposures.

43% were TDP-43+. The TDP-43+ group had worse performance on BNT total score at first (p = .01) and last assessments (p = .01). At first assessment, TDP-43+ individuals had an estimated 29% (CI: 7%–56%) higher mean number of incorrect items after adjusting for covariates, and a 51% (CI: 15%–98%) higher number of IDK responses compared to TDP-43−. At last assessment, compared to TDP-43−, the TDP-43+ group on average missed 31% (CI: 6%–62%; p = .01) more items and had 33% more IDK responses (CI: 1% fewer to 78% more; p = .06).

An important component of poorer performance on the BNT in participants who are TDP-43+ is having loss of word knowledge versus retrieval difficulties.

Emerging evidence suggests that individuals recovering from COVID-19 perceive changes to their cognitive function and psychological health that persist for weeks to months following acute infection. Although there is a strong relationship between initial COVID-19 infection severity and development of prolonged symptoms, there is only a modest relationship between initial COVID-19 severity and self-reported severity of prolonged symptoms. While much of the research has focused on more severe COVID-19 cases, over 90% of COVID-19 infections are classified as mild or moderate. Previous work has found evidence that non-severe COVID-19 infection is associated with cognitive deficits with small-to-medium effect sizes, though patients who were not hospitalized generally performed better on cognitive measures than did those who were hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. As such, it is important to also quantify subjective cognitive functioning in non-severe (mild or moderate) COVID-19 cases. Our meta-analysis examines self-reported cognition in samples that also measured objective neuropsychological performance in individuals with non-severe COVID-19 infections in the post-acute (>28 days) period.

This study’s design was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42021293124) and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist for reporting guidelines. Inclusion criteria were established prior to article searching and required peer-reviewed studies to have (1) used adult participants with a probable or documented diagnosis of non-severe (asymptomatic, mild, or moderate) COVID-19 who were in the post-acute stage (>28 days after initial infection); (2) used objective neuropsychological testing to document cognitive functioning; and (3) include a self-report measure of subjective cognition. At least two independent reviewers conducted all aspects of the screening, reviews, and extraction process. Twelve studies with three types of study design met full criteria and were included (total n=2,744).

Healthy comparison group comparison: Compared with healthy comparison participants, the post-COVID-19 group reported moderately worse subjective cognition (d=0.546 [95% CI (0.054, 1.038)], p=0.030). Severity comparison: When comparing hospitalized and not hospitalized groups, patients who were hospitalized reported modestly worse subjective cognition (d=-0.241, [95% CI (-0.703, 0.221)], p=0.30), though the difference was not statistically significant. Normative data comparison: When all non-severe groups (mild and moderate; k=12) were compared to the normative comparison groups, there was a large, statistically significant effect (d=-1.06, [95% CI (-1.58, -0.53)], p=0.001) for self-report of worse subjective cognitive functioning.

There was evidence of subjective report of worse cognitive functioning following non-severe COVID-19 infection. Future work should explore relationships between objective neuropsychological functioning and subjective cognitive difficulties following COVID-19.

To effectively diagnose and treat cognitive post-COVID-19 symptoms, it is important to understand objective cognitive difficulties across the range of acute COVID-19 severity. The aim of this meta-analysis is to describe objective neuropsychological test performance in individuals with non-severe (mild/moderate) COVID-19 cases in the post-acute stage of infection (>28 days after initial infection).

This meta-analysis was pre-registered with Prospero (CRD42021293124) and utilized the PRISMA reporting guidelines, with screening conducted by at least two independent reviewers for all aspects of the screening and data extraction process. Inclusion criteria were established before the article search and were as follows: (1) Studies using adult participants with a probable or formal and documented diagnosis of COVID-19 in the post-acute stage of infection; (2) Studies comparing cognitive functioning using objective neuropsychological tests in one or more COVID-19 groups and a comparison group, or one group designs using tests with normative data; (3) Asymptomatic, mild, or moderate cases of COVID-19. Twenty-seven articles (n=18,202) with three types of study designs and three articles with additional longitudinal data met our full criteria.

Individuals with non-severe initial COVID-19 infection demonstrated worse cognitive performance compared to healthy comparison participants (d=-0.412 [95% CI, -0.718, -0.176)], p=0.001). We used metaregression to examine the relationship between both average age of the sample and time since initial COVID-19 infection (as covariates in two independent models) and effect size in studies with comparison groups. There was no significant effect for age (b=-0.027 [95% CI (0.091, 0.038)], p=0.42). There was a significant effect for time since diagnosis, with a small improvement in cognitive performance for every day following initial acute COVID-19 infection (b=0.011 [95% CI (0.0039, 0.0174)], p=0.002). However, those with mild (non-hospitalized) initial COVID-19 infections performed better than did those who were hospitalized for initial COVID-19 infections (d=0.253 [95% CI (0.372, 0.134)], p<0.001). For studies that used normative data comparisons, there was a small, non-significant effect compared to normative data (d=-0.165 [95% CI (-0.333, 0.003)], p=0.055).

Individuals who have recovered from non-severe cases of COVID-19 may be at risk for cognitive decline or impairment and may benefit from cognitive health interventions.

Prior research suggests that religiosity may be associated with healthier levels of mental health in certain domains (eg, higher self-esteem and lower rates of substance use problems). However, very little is known about religiosity and impulsive plus compulsive tendencies. This study examined associations between religiosity and impulsive and compulsive behaviors and traits among university students.

Nine thousand, four hundred and forty-nine students received a 156-item anonymous online survey which assessed religiosity, alcohol and drug use, mental health issues, and impulsive and compulsive traits. Two groups of interest were defined: those with high religiosity, and those with low religiosity, based on z-scores. The two groups were compared on the measures of interest.

Three thousand, five hundred and seventy-two university students (57.1% female) responded to the survey. Those with high levels of organizational religious activity, as well as those with high levels of intrinsic or subjective religiosity, differed from their fellow students in having better self-esteem, being less likely to have alcohol or drug problems, and generally being less impulsive in terms of attention and planning. Compulsivity did not differ between groups. Associations were of small effect size except for the link between religiosity and lower impulsivity, which was of medium effect size.

This study shows a link between higher religiosity and lower impulsivity, as well as higher levels of mental health across several domains. Whether these associations are causal—and if so, the direction of such causality—requires rigorous longitudinal research.