MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040882880 · doi:10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.tmp42

Abstract TMP42: Coherent Neural Oscillations Inform Early Stroke Motor Recovery

2020· article· en· W3040882880 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica M. Cassidy, Anirudh Wodeyar, Ramesh Srinivasan, Steven C. Cramer

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsStan Cassidy Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Motor cortexRehabilitationSupplementary motor areaCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Motor imageryAudiologyPrimary motor cortexNeurosciencePsychologyPhysical therapyBrain–computer interfaceInternal medicinePhysicsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Neural oscillations may contain valuable information for stroke rehabilitation. The objective of this study was to examine the predictive performance of neural oscillations in early stroke motor recovery using dense array electroencephalography (EEG). Since past work theorizes that neural oscillations underlie behavior, we hypothesized that coherent oscillations with ipsilesional primary motor cortex (M1) across a 1-30 Hz band would significantly predict early motor recovery post-stroke. Methods: Individuals with stroke admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) completed a three-minute resting EEG recording and structural MRI around the time of IRF admission and motor testing (Functional Independence Measurement motor subscale (FIM-motor)) at IRF admission and discharge. We examined how well FIM-Motor change was predicted using EEG power and coherence with ipsilesional M1 across delta (1-3 Hz), theta (4-7 Hz), alpha (8-12 Hz), low beta (13-19 Hz), and high beta (20-30 Hz) frequency bands, along with corticospinal tract (CST) injury, in a lasso regression with K-fold cross-validation for deviance estimation. Results: Twenty-seven subjects (20 males, 58.3±14.6 years, 8-17 days post-stroke) with predominantly mild-moderate motor impairment participated. EEG ipsilesional M1 coherence with 16 leads overlying both hemispheres predicted 61.8% of FIM-motor change from IRF admission to discharge, with higher frequencies (alpha, high beta) positively relating to motor recovery. Lower frequencies overlying contralesional parietal (theta) and frontal (delta) regions inversely and positively related to motor recovery respectively. Coherence outperformed EEG power and CST injury measurements. Ipsilesional M1 coherence also predicted 55.2% of the variance in residuals derived from a predictive model containing only CST injury, suggesting that EEG coherence and CST injury contain unique information for motor recovery prediction. Conclusions: Early after stroke, coherence of neural oscillations with ipsilesional M1 across the entire brain through a wide frequency spectrum is best at predicting functional gains from inpatient rehabilitation and may be feasible as a bedside biomarker of motor recovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207