Cortical Thickness of Brain Areas Beyond Stroke Lesions and Sensory-Motor Recovery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The clinical outcome of patients suffering from stroke is dependent on multiple factors. The features of the lesion itself play an important role but clinical recovery is remarkably influenced by the plasticity mechanisms triggered by the stroke and occurring at a distance from the lesion. The latter translate into functional and structural changes of which cortical thickness might be easy to quantify one of the main players. However, studies on the changes of cortical thickness in brain areas beyond stroke lesion and their relationship to sensory-motor recovery are sparse. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of cerebral stroke on cortical thickness (CT) beyond the stroke lesion and its association with sensory-motor recovery. Materials and Methods: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library) were searched. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized controlled trials and the Risk of Bias Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials. Results: The search strategy retrieved 821 records, 12 studies were included and risk of bias assessed. In most of the included studies, cortical thinning was seen at the ipsilesional motor area (M1). Cortical thinning can occur beyond the stroke lesion, typically in regions anatomically connected because of anterograde degeneration. Nonetheless, studies also reported cortical thickening of regions of the unaffected hemisphere, likely related to compensatory plasticity. Some studies revealed a significant correlation between changes in cortical thickness of M1 or somatosensory (S1) cortical areas and motor function recovery. Discussion and Conclusions: Following a stroke, changes in cortical thickness occur both in regions directly connected to the stroke lesion and in contralateral hemisphere areas as well as in the cerebellum. The underlying mechanisms leading to these changes in cortical thickness are still to be fully understood and further research in the field is needed. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020200539 ; PROSPERO 2020, identifier: CRD42020200539.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".