White matter hyperintensities modify relationships between corticospinal tract damage and motor outcomes after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor outcomes after stroke relate to corticospinal tract (CST) damage. Concurrent damage from white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) might impact neurological capacity for recovery after CST injury. Here, we evaluated if WMHs modulate the relationship between CST damage and post-stroke motor impairment outcome. We included 223 individuals from the ENIGMA Stroke Recovery Working Group. CST damage was indexed with weighted CST lesion load (CST-LL). Mixed effects beta-regression models were fit to test the impact of CST-LL, WMH volume, and their interaction on motor impairment. WMH volume related to motor impairment above and beyond CST-LL (β = 0.178, p = 0.022). We tested if relationships varied by WMH severity (mild vs. moderate-severe). In individuals with mild WMHs, motor impairment related to CST-LL (β = 0.888, p < 0.001) with a CST-LL x WMH interaction (β = -0.211, 0.026). In individuals with moderate-severe WMHs, motor impairment related to WMH volume (β = 0.299, p = 0.044), but did not significantly relate to CST-LL or a CST-LL x WMH interaction. WMH-related damage may be under-recognised in stroke research as a factor contributing to variability in motor outcomes. Our findings emphasize the importance of brain structural reserve in motor outcomes after brain injury.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".