Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most difficult clinical questions in stroke rehabilitation are "What is this patient's potential for recovery?" and "What is the best rehabilitation strategy for this person, given her/his clinical profile?" Without answers to these questions, clinicians struggle to make decisions regarding the content and focus of therapy, and researchers design studies that inadvertently mix participants who have a high likelihood of responding with those who do not. Developing and implementing biomarkers that distinguish patient subgroups will help address these issues and unravel the factors important to the recovery process. The goal of the present paper is to provide a consensus statement regarding the current state of the evidence for stroke recovery biomarkers. Biomarkers of motor, somatosensory, cognitive and language domains across the recovery timeline post-stroke are considered; with focus on brain structure and function, and exclusion of blood markers and genetics. We provide evidence for biomarkers that are considered ready to be included in clinical trials, as well as others that are promising but not ready and so represent a developmental priority. We conclude with an example that illustrates the utility of biomarkers in recovery and rehabilitation research, demonstrating how the inclusion of a biomarker may enhance future clinical trials. In this way, we propose a way forward for when and where we can include biomarkers to advance the efficacy of the practice of, and research into, rehabilitation and recovery after stroke.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it