Lesion Location and Poststroke Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that poststroke depression (PSD) results from left hemisphere lesions. However, attempts to systematically review the data investigating lesion location and PSD have yielded conflicting results. We sought to investigate the methodological differences across the literature studying the relationship between lesion location and PSD. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: A MEDLINE literature search to retrieve articles investigating the association between PSD and lesion location was performed. Information sought included source population of samples, definition of depression, standardized measurement of stroke and depression, blinding, time since stroke onset, and study design. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated with the use of Review Manager and MetaView statistical software. Twenty-six original articles were reviewed. Much of the heterogeneity across studies reflected differences in methodology. The direction of association between left hemisphere lesion location and PSD varied depending on whether patients were sampled as inpatients (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.76) or from the community (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.92). Change in the direction of association was also observed across assessment interval from the acute stroke (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.04) to the chronic stroke (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.93) phase. Differences in the measurement of depression, study design, and presentations of results also may have contributed to the heterogeneity of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Several key initiatives should be addressed before future research is undertaken, including the development of a comprehensive measure of PSD, optimal poststroke assessment intervals, and determination of a representative population reference.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".