Bayesian modelling disentangles language versus executive control disruption in stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke is the leading cause of long-term disability worldwide. Incurred brain damage can disrupt cognition, often with persisting deficits in language and executive capacities. Yet, despite their clinical relevance, the commonalities and differences between language versus executive control impairments remain under-specified. To fill this gap, we tailored a Bayesian hierarchical modelling solution in a largest-of-its-kind cohort (1080 patients with stroke) to deconvolve language and executive control with respect to the stroke topology. Cognitive function was assessed with a rich neuropsychological test battery including global cognitive function (tested with the Mini-Mental State Exam), language (assessed with a picture naming task), executive speech function (tested with verbal fluency tasks), executive control functions (Trail Making Test and Digit Symbol Coding Task), visuospatial functioning (Rey Complex Figure), as well as verbal learning and memory function (Soul Verbal Learning). Bayesian modelling predicted interindividual differences in eight cognitive outcome scores three months after stroke based on specific tissue lesion topologies. A multivariate factor analysis extracted four distinct cognitive factors that distinguish left- and right-hemispheric contributions to ischaemic tissue lesions. These factors were labelled according to the neuropsychological tests that had the strongest factor loadings: 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 mental flexibility, task switching 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 distinct factors that were labelled as executive speech functions and verbal memory. Impairments on both factors 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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".