Measuring Neuroplasticity in Response to Cardiovascular Exercise in People With Stroke: A Critical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rehabilitative treatments that promote neuroplasticity are believed to improve recovery after stroke. Animal studies have shown that cardiovascular exercise (CE) promotes neuroplasticity but the effects of this intervention on the human brain and its implications for the functional recovery of patients remain unclear. The use of biomarkers has enabled the assessment of cellular and molecular events that occur in the central nervous system after brain injury. Some of these biomarkers have proven to be particularly valuable for the diagnosis of severity, prognosis of recovery, as well as for measuring the neuroplastic response to different treatments after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To provide a critical analysis on the current evidence supporting the use of neurophysiological, neuroimaging, and blood biomarkers to assess the neuroplastic response to CE in individuals poststroke. RESULTS: Most biomarkers used are responsive to the effects of acute and chronic CE interventions, but the response appears to be variable and is not consistently associated with functional improvements. Small sample sizes, methodological variability, incomplete information regarding patient's characteristics, inadequate standardization of training parameters, and lack of reporting of associations with functional outcomes preclude the quantification of the neuroplastic effects of CE poststroke using biomarkers. CONCLUSION: Consensus on the optimal biomarkers to monitor the neuroplastic response to CE is currently lacking. By addressing critical methodological issues, future studies could advance our understanding of the use of biomarkers to measure the impact of CE on neuroplasticity and functional recovery in patients with 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 | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".