Brain state–dependent stimulation boosts functional recovery following stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adjuvant protocols devised to enhance motor recovery in subacute stroke patients have failed to show benefits with respect to classic therapeutic interventions. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of a novel brain state-dependent intervention based on known mechanisms of memory and learning that is integrated as part of the weekly rehabilitation program in subacute stroke patients. METHODS: Twenty-four hospitalized subacute stroke patients were randomly assigned to 2 intervention groups: (1) the associative group received 30 pairings of a peripheral electrical nerve stimulus (ES) such that the generated afferent volley arrived precisely during the most active phase of the motor cortex as patients attempted to perform a movement; and (2) in the control group, the ES intensity was too low to generate a stimulation of the nerve. Functional (including the lower extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment [LE-FM; primary outcome measure]) and neurophysiological (changes in motor evoked potentials [MEPs]) assessments were performed prior to and following the intervention period. RESULTS: The associative group significantly improved functional recovery with respect to the control group (median [interquartile range] LE-FM improvement = 6.5 [3.5-8.25] and 3 [0.75-3], respectively; p = 0.029). Significant increases in MEP amplitude were seen following all sessions in the associative group only (p ≤ 0.006). INTERPRETATION: This is the first evidence of a clinical effect of a neuromodulatory intervention in the subacute phase of stroke. This was evident with relatively few repetitions in comparison to available techniques, making it a clinically viable approach. The results indicate the potential of the proposed neuromodulation system in daily clinical routine for stroke rehabilitation. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:84-95.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".