Generalizing post-stroke prognoses from research data to clinical data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around a third of stroke survivors suffer from acquired language disorders (aphasia), but current medicine cannot predict whether or when they might recover. Prognostic research in this area increasingly draws on datasets associating structural brain imaging data with outcome scores for ever-larger samples of stroke patients. The aim is to learn brain-behaviour trends from these data, and generalize those trends to predict outcomes for new patients. The practical significance of this work depends on the expected breadth of that generalization. Here, we show that these models can generalize across countries and native languages (from British patients tested in English to Chilean patients tested in Spanish), across neuroimaging technology (from MRI to CT), and from scans collected months or years after stroke for research purposes, to scans collected days or weeks after stroke for clinical purposes. Our results suggest one important confound, in attempting to generalize from research data to clinical data, is the delay between scan acquisition and language assessment. This delay is typically small for research data, where scans and assessments are often acquired contemporaneously. But the most natural, clinical application of these predictions will employ acute prognostic factors to predict much longer-term outcomes. We mitigated this confound by projecting the clinical patients' lesions from the time when their scans were acquired, to the time when their language abilities were assessed; with this projection in place, there was strong evidence that prognoses derived from research data generalized equally well to research and clinical data. These results encourage attention to the confounding role that lesion growth may play in other types of lesion-symptom analysis.
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 | 0.119 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".