Neuroimaging correlates of post-stroke fatigue: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom following stroke, but its underlying mechanisms are unknown. Associations with a number of imaging features have been proposed. Aims: We aimed to assess whether neuroimaging parameters could better inform our understanding of possible causes of post-stroke fatigue (PSF) through systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Using a predefined protocol registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022303168), we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsycInfo for studies assessing PSF and computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, or diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We extracted neuroimaging parameters and narratively analyzed study results to assess any association with PSF. Where there were 3+ similar studies, we carried out a meta-analysis using inverse-variance random-effects model to estimate the total association of each neuroimaging parameter on PSF. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle and Ottawa Scale. Results: We identified 46 studies ( N = 6543); in many studies, associations with fatigue were secondary or subanalyses (28.3%). Imaging parameters were assessed across eight variables: lesion lateralization, lesion location, lesion volume, brain atrophy, infarct number, cerebral microbleeds, white matter hyperintensities (WMHs), and network measures. Most variables showed no conclusive evidence for any association with fatigue. Meta-analysis, where possible, showed no association of the following with PSF; left lesion lateralization (OR: 0.88, 95% CI (0.64, 1. 22) ( p = 0.45)), infratentorial lesion location (OR: 1.83, 95% CI (0.63, 5.32) ( p = 0.27)), and WMH (OR: 1.21, 95% CI (0.84, 1.75) ( p = 0.29)). Many studies assessed lesion location with mixed findings; only one used voxel-symptom lesion-mapping (VSLM). Some small studies suggested an association between altered functional brain networks, namely frontal, fronto-striato-thalamic, and sensory processing networks, with PSF. Conclusion: There was little evidence for the association between any neuroimaging parameters and PSF. Future studies should utilize advanced imaging techniques to fully understand the role of lesion location in PSF, while the role of altered brain networks in mediating PSF merits further research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".