Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Visualize Stroke and Characterize Stroke Recovery: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global burden of stroke continues to grow. Although stroke prevention strategies (e.g., medications, diet, and exercise) can contribute to risk reduction, options for acute interventions (e.g., thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke) are limited to the minority of patients. The remaining patients are often left with profound neurological disabilities that substantially impact quality of life, economic productivity, and increase caregiver burden. In the last decade, however, the future outlook for such patients has been tempered by movement toward the view that the brain is capable of reorganizing after injury. Many now view brain recovery after stroke as an area of scientific research with large potential for therapeutic advances, far into the future (Broderick and William, 2004). As a probe of brain anatomy, function and physiology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-invasive and highly versatile modality that promises to play a particularly important role in such research. Here we provide a basic review of MRI physical principles and applications for assessing stroke, looking toward the future role MRI may play in improving stroke rehabilitation methods and 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".