Diverse functional connectivity patterns of resting-state brain networks associated with good and poor hand outcomes following stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor stroke has been characterized by disruptions in multiple large-scale functional brain networks. However, it remains unclear whether stroke patients with good hand outcomes show different connectivity profiles within and between networks from those with poor hand outcomes. In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 52 chronic subcortical stroke patients [illness duration (mean ± SD): 16 ± 16.2 months] and 52 healthy controls from the local hospital and community from June 2010 to August 2016. We first performed independent component analysis (ICA) on resting-state fMRI data to extract fifteen resting-state networks. Then, we compared the functional connectivity within and between networks across 52 healthy controls, 26 patients with a partially paralyzed hand (PPH), and 26 patients with a completely paralyzed hand (CPH). Compared to the patients with a PPH, the patients with a CPH showed increased connectivity in the contralesional sensorimotor cortex within the contralesional sensorimotor network; the increased connectivity was negatively correlated with the performance of the paretic hand. Moreover, the patients with a CPH, compared to those with a PPH, showed decreased strengths of connectivity between the ipsilesional sensorimotor network and both the dorsal sensorimotor network and ventral visual network; the decreased strengths of connectivity were positively correlated with the performance of the paretic hand. Collectively, our findings suggest that stroke patients with different hand outcomes show distinct functional reorganization patterns in large-scale brain networks. These findings shed light on the network-level neuromechanisms that help explain why stroke survivors in the chronic stage show different hand outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".