Lateropulsion with active pushing in stroke patients: its link with lesion location and the perception of verticality. A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lateropulsion with active Pushing (LwP) is characterized by impairments in postural control. Previous research suggests an association between LwP, lesion location and verticality misperception. This first-ever systematic review evaluates the association between LwP, lesion location and the perception of verticality (PROSPERO: CRD42020159248). METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, REHABDATA, Embase, Cochrane Library and PEDro were systematically searched on December 16, 2021. Studies were included when examining lesion location or perception of verticality (Subjective Haptic, Visual or Postural Vertical) in supratentorial stroke patients showing LwP. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Data were qualitatively analyzed and extracted. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, examining a total of 340 LwP patients. Lesions in: the thalamus, internal capsule, inferior parietal lobule at the junction of the postcentral gyrus, the posterior insula and the superior temporal gyrus, were associated with LwP. Whereas all studies examining the Subjective Postural and Haptic Vertical (haptic only examined once) reported a significant increased deviation in LwP patients, inconsistent results were found for the Subjective Visual Vertical. Furthermore, the Subjective Visual and Postural Vertical showed inconsistent results for magnitude, direction and variability of this deviation. DISCUSSION: A complex brain network, rather than only one brain region, seems responsible for body control with respect to gravity. A disruption within this network might lead to a bias in the construction of a correct internal reference frame, crucial for perceiving verticality. There was an association of LwP with verticality misperception in all three modalities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".