Structural network topology associated with naming improvements following intensive aphasia therapy in post-stroke aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A stroke can disrupt the finely tuned language network resulting in aphasia, a language impairment. Though many stroke survivors with aphasia recover within the first 6 months, a significant proportion have lasting deficits. The factors contributing to optimal treatment response remain unclear. Some evidence suggests that increased modularity or fragmentation of brain networks may underlie post-stroke aphasia severity and the extent of recovery. We examined associations between network organization and aphasia recovery in sixteen chronic stroke survivors with non-fluent aphasia following 35 h of Multi-Modality Aphasia Therapy over 10 days and 20 healthy controls who underwent imaging at a single timepoint. Using diffusion-weighted scans obtained before and after treatment, we constructed whole-brain structural connectomes representing the number of probabilistic streamlines between brain regions. Graph theory metrics were quantified for each connectome using the Brain Connectivity Toolbox. Correlations were examined between graph metrics and speech performance measured using the Boston Naming Test (BNT) at pre-, post- and 3-months post-intervention. Compared to controls, participants with stroke demonstrated higher whole-brain modularity at pre-treatment. Modularity did not differ between pre- and post-treatment. In individuals who responded to therapy, higher pre-treatment modularity was associated with worse performance on the BNT. Moreover, higher pre-treatment participation coefficients (i.e., how well a region is connected outside its own module) for the left IFG, planum temporale, and posterior temporal gyri were associated with greater improvements at post-treatment. These results suggest that pre-treatment network topology may impact therapeutic gains, highlighting the influence of network organization on post-stroke aphasia recovery.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".