Abstract WP200: Deficits in Proprioception Associated With Supramarginal Gyrus Lesions After Stroke - A Case Series Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proprioception is our sense of limb position and movement without vision. Impaired proprioception leads to difficulty performing activities of daily living. While proprioceptive deficits are common after stroke, the neural correlates underlying them are relatively unknown. Recent voxel based lesion analysis evidence suggests that a cluster of regions is implicated in these deficits, including the supramarginal gyrus (SMG) and S1. Using a case series approach, we assessed the impact of different lesion combinations on proprioception, encapsulating SMG with and without S1 and other brain regions in this network. Robotic assessments of proprioception (position matching and kinaesthesia) and MRI/CT scans were acquired for 217 individuals around 1-week post stroke. Across both robotic assessments, performance was compared to a normative model of healthy controls to detect the presence of proprioceptive deficits. Lesions on scans were marked by a trained assessor and then verified by a neurologist. Individuals with lesions to combinations of SMG, S1, insula and operculum were extracted. The extent of damage to each region was determined using the Automated Anatomical Labelling and Catani atlases. A total of 62 subjects with lesion combinations of interest were identified and analysed in more detail (13 SMG lesions). The extent of SMG damage was small, ranging from 0.03% to 25.95%. Position sense deficits were common for both right (6/6) and left SMG (6/7) lesions. Even in the absence of S1 lesions, these deficits remained prevalent. Deficits in kinaesthesia were more common in individuals with combined SMG and S1 lesions than in those without concurrent S1 lesions. Deficits in both proprioceptive assessments were uncommon in those with left S1 lesions in the absence of SMG lesions. Those with right S1 lesions displayed greater deficits than those with left S1 lesions. Results indicate that brain areas beyond S1 must be considered to better understand proprioceptive deficits and develop better strategies for improving proprioceptive function after stroke. The contributory influence of each area should be further explored in isolation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".