Corticospinal Excitability as a Predictor of Functional Gains at the Affected Upper Limb Following Robotic Training in Chronic Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic training can help improve function of a paretic limb following a stroke, but individuals respond differently to the training. A predictor of functional gains might improve the ability to select those individuals more likely to benefit from robot-based therapy. Studies evaluating predictors of functional improvement after a robotic training are scarce. One study has found that white matter tract integrity predicts functional gains following a robotic training of the hand and wrist. Objective. To determine the predictive ability of behavioral and brain measures in order to improve selection of individuals for robotic training. METHODS: Twenty subjects with chronic stroke participated in an 8-week course of robotic exoskeletal training for the arm. Before training, a clinical evaluation, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), diffusion tensor imaging, and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) were each measured as predictors. Final functional gain was defined as change in the Box and Block Test (BBT). Measures significant in bivariate analysis were fed into a multivariate linear regression model. RESULTS: Training was associated with an average gain of 6 ± 5 blocks on the BBT (P < .0001). Bivariate analysis revealed that lower baseline motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude on TMS, and lower laterality M1 index on fMRI each significantly correlated with greater BBT change. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, baseline MEP magnitude was the only measure that remained significant. CONCLUSION: Subjects with lower baseline MEP magnitude benefited the most from robotic training of the affected arm. These subjects might have reserve remaining for the training to boost corticospinal excitability, translating into functional gains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".