Prediction of Cognitive Recovery After Stroke: The Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging–Based Measures of Brain Connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prediction of long-term recovery of a poststroke cognitive disorder (PSCD) is currently inaccurate. We assessed whether diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)-based measures of brain connectivity predict cognitive recovery 1 year after stroke in patients with PSCD in addition to conventional clinical, neuropsychological, and imaging variables. METHODS: This prospective monocenter cohort study included 217 consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of ischemic stroke, aged ≥50 years, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment score below 26 during hospitalization. Five weeks after stroke, patients underwent DWI magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychological assessment was performed 5 weeks and 1 year after stroke and was used to classify PSCD as absent, modest, or marked. Cognitive recovery was operationalized as a shift to a better PSCD category over time. We evaluated 4 DWI-based measures of brain connectivity: global network efficiency and mean connectivity strength, both weighted for mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy. Conventional predictors were age, sex, level of education, clinical stroke characteristics, neuropsychological variables, and magnetic resonance imaging findings (eg, infarct size). DWI-based measures of brain connectivity were added to a multivariable model to assess additive predictive value. RESULTS: <0.1 in univariable regression analysis. There was no added value of these measures to a multivariable model that included level of education and infarct size as significant predictors of cognitive recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Current DWI-based measures of brain connectivity appear to predict recovery of PSCD but at present have no added value over conventional predictors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".