Mechanisms of Post-Stroke Fatigue: A Follow-Up From the Third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-stroke fatigue (PSF) is a significant and highly prevalent symptom, whose mechanisms are poorly understood. The third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable paper on PSF focussed primarily on defining and measuring PSF while mechanisms were briefly discussed. This companion paper to the main paper is aimed at elaborating possible mechanisms of PSF. METHODS: This paper reviews the available evidence that potentially explains the pathophysiology of PSF and draws parallels from fatigue literature in other conditions. We start by proposing a case for phenotyping PSF based on structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of PSF. This is followed by discussion of a potentially significant role of early inflammation in the development of fatigue, specifically the impact of low-grade inflammation and its long-term systemic effects resulting in PSF. Of the many neurotransmitter systems in the brain, the dopaminergic systems have the most evidence for a role in PSF, along with a role in sensorimotor processing. Sensorimotor neural network dynamics are compromised as highlighted by evidence from both neurostimulation and neuromodulation studies. The double-edged sword effect of exercise on PSF provides further insight into how PSF might emerge and the importance of carefully titrating interventional paradigms. CONCLUSION: The paper concludes by synthesizing the presented evidence into a unifying model of fatigue which distinguishes between factors that pre-dispose, precipitate, and perpetuate PSF. This framework will help guide new research into the biological mechanisms of PSF which is a necessary prerequisite for developing treatments to mitigate the debilitating effects of post-stroke fatigue.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".