Abstract WP173: Children’s Post-Stroke Expressive Language Outcomes Are Affected By Bilingual Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Approximately 2/3 of children face neurological deficits following arterial ischemic stroke (AIS). In neurotypical development, bilingualism is thought to confer certain linguistic and cognitive advantages. However, research on whether this may affect development in bilingual pediatric stroke patients is scarce. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of bilingual vs. monolingual exposure on language and cognitive outcomes in children following arterial ischemic stroke across two studies: (1) large-scale group analysis using the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure (PSOM); (2) exploratory case studies using neuropsychological measures. Methods: An institutional stroke registry and chart review were used to gather patient and stroke data, including the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure (PSOM) and standardized neuropsychological measures performed at several timepoints post-stroke in children with AIS. In Study 1, growth curve modeling based on PSOM subscales, predicted by age at stroke groups, language groups and their interactions was used. In Study 2, comparative case studies were conducted with a monolingual-bilingual pair, aged 7 and 8 at stroke onset. Results: In Study 1, 237 patients were identified (44%, bilingual patients). Patients were stratified based on age at stroke onset i.e. neonatal (<28 days of life), first-year (28 days-12 months) and childhood (13 months - 18 years). On the PSOM’s language expression subscale, an interaction revealed better post-stroke outcomes among bilingual children aged 1-12 months at stroke (beta = -0.32, t =-2.33, p = 0.02). In Study 2, the bilingual’s performance on neuropsychological assessments corroborated findings of Study 1, favoring a recovery of expressive language. Conclusion: Overall, we found no negative consequences of a bilingual environment on post-stroke outcomes. Additionally, it is possible that bilingualism has a faciliatory effect on expressive language development post-stroke. Further research should evaluate linguistic advantage effects prospectively in bilingual children with stroke and a control group.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".