A Review of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Multimodal Neuroimaging to Characterize Post-Stroke Neuroplasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following stroke, the brain undergoes various stages of recovery where the central nervous system can reorganize neural circuitry (neuroplasticity) both spontaneously and with the aid of behavioral rehabilitation and non-invasive brain stimulation. Multiple neuroimaging techniques can characterize common structural and functional stroke-related deficits, and importantly, help predict recovery of function. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) typically reveals increased overall diffusivity throughout the brain following stroke, and is capable of indexing the extent of white matter damage. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides an index of metabolic changes in surviving neural tissue after stroke, serving as a marker of brain function. The neural correlates of altered brain activity after stroke have been demonstrated by abnormal activation of sensorimotor cortices during task performance, and at rest, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Electroencephalography (EEG) has been used to characterize motor dysfunction in terms of increased cortical amplitude in the sensorimotor regions when performing upper limb movement, indicating abnormally increased cognitive effort and planning in individuals with stroke. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) work reveals changes in ipsilesional and contralesional cortical excitability in the sensorimotor cortices. The severity of motor deficits indexed using TMS has been linked to the magnitude of activity imbalance between the sensorimotor cortices. In this paper, we will provide a narrative review of data from studies utilizing DTI, MRS, fMRI, EEG, and brain stimulation techniques focusing on TMS and its combination with uni- and multimodal neuroimaging methods to assess recovery after stroke. Approaches that delineate the best measures with which to predict or positively alter outcomes will be highlighted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".