Multivariate and network lesion mapping reveals distinct architectures of domain-specific post-stroke cognitive impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify patterns of structural disconnection and multivariate lesion-behaviour relationships associated with post-stroke deficits across six commonly impacted cognitive domains: executive function, language, memory, numerical processing, praxis, and visuospatial attention. METHODS: Stroke survivors (n = 593) completed a brief domain-specific cognitive assessment (the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS)) during acute hospitalisation. Network-level and multivariate (sparce canonical correlation) lesion mapping analyses were conducted to identify focal neural correlates and distributed patterns of structural disconnection associated with impairment on each of the 16 OCS measures. RESULTS: Network-level and multivariate lesion mapping analyses identified significant correlates for 12/16 and 10/16 OCS measures, respectively which were largely consistent with correlates reported in past work. Language impairments were reliably localised to network- and voxel-level correlates centred in left fronto-temporal regions. Memory impairments were associated with disconnection in a large network of left hemisphere regions. Number processing deficits were associated with damage to voxels centred in the left insular/opercular cortex, as well as disconnection within the surrounding white matter tracts. Within the domain of attention, different subtypes of visuospatial neglect were linked to distinct but partially overlapping patterns of disconnection and voxel-level damage. Praxis impairment was not linked to any voxel-level regions but was significantly associated with disconnection within the left hemisphere dorsal attention network. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the utility of routine, domain-specific cognitive assessment and imaging data for theoretically-driven lesion mapping analyses, while providing novel insight into the complex anatomical correlates of common and debilitating post-stroke cognitive impairments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".