Bayesian modeling disentangles language versus executive control disruption in stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke is the leading cause of long-term disability worldwide. Incurred brain damage disrupts cognition, often with persisting deficits in language and executive capacities. Despite their clinical relevance, the commonalities, and differences of language versus executive control impairments remain under-specified. We tailored a Bayesian hierarchical modeling solution in a largest-of-its-kind cohort (1080 stroke patients) to deconvolve language and executive control in the brain substrates of stroke insults. Four cognitive factors distinguished left- and right-hemispheric contributions to ischemic tissue lesion. One factor delineated language and general cognitive performance and was mainly associated with damage to left-hemispheric brain regions in the frontal and temporal cortex. A factor for executive control summarized control and visual-constructional abilities. This factor was strongly related to right-hemispheric brain damage of posterior regions in the occipital cortex. The interplay of language and executive control was reflected in two factors: executive speech functions and verbal memory. Impairments on both were mainly linked to left-hemispheric lesions. These findings shed light onto the causal implications of hemispheric specialization for cognition; and make steps towards subgroup-specific treatment protocols after stroke.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".