Contralesional Thalamic Surface Atrophy and Functional Disconnection 3 Months after Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote structural and functional changes have been previously described after stroke and may have an impact on clinical outcome. We aimed to use multimodal MRI to investigate contralesional subcortical structural and functional changes 3 months after anterior circulation ischemic stroke. METHODS: Fifteen patients with acute ischemic stroke had multimodal MRI imaging (including high resolution structural T1-MPRAGE and resting state fMRI) within 1 week of onset and at 1 and 3 months. Seven healthy controls of similar age group were also imaged at a single time point. Contralesional subcortical structural volume was assessed using an automated segmentation algorithm in FMRIB's Integrated Registration and Segmentation Tool (FIRST). Functional connectivity changes were assessed using the intrinsic connectivity contrast (ICC), which was calculated using the functional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated networks (Conn). RESULTS: Contralesional thalamic volume in the stroke patients was significantly reduced at 3 months compared to baseline (median change -2.1%, interquartile range [IQR] -3.4-0.4, p = 0.047), with the predominant areas demonstrating atrophy geometrically appearing to be the superior and inferior surface. The difference in volume between the contralesional thalamus at baseline (mean 6.41 ml, standard deviation [SD] 0.6 ml) and the mean volume of the 2 thalami in controls (mean 7.22 ml, SD 1.1 ml) was not statistically significant. The degree of longitudinal thalamic atrophy in patients was correlated with baseline stroke severity with more severe strokes being associated with a greater degree of atrophy (Spearman's rho -0.54, p = 0.037). There was no significant difference between baseline contralesional thalamic ICC in patients and control thalamic ICC. However, in patients, there was a significant linear reduction in the mean ICC of the contralesional thalamus over the imaging time points (p = 0.041), indicating reduced connectivity to the remainder of the brain. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of remote brain areas, such as the contralesional thalamus, in stroke recovery. Similar methods have the potential to be used in the prediction of stroke outcome or as imaging biomarkers of stroke recovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".