Motor functioning during early recovery after childhood Arterial ischemic stroke is associated with intellectual abilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor impairments are one of the most common adverse outcomes after childhood arterial ischemic stroke (C-AIS), yet their relationship with intellectual abilities is not yet well understood. This study examined associations between intellectual abilities and motor functioning and clinical features associated with motor impairment. Participants were 34 children with C-AIS. Motor functioning was assessed with the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure sensorimotor subscale at two timepoints: early recovery (between 30 days post-stroke and 1 year) and closest to time of neuropsychological testing. Intellectual abilities were measured using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 4th or 5th edition. Motor functioning during early recovery was significantly associated with intellectual functioning, verbal abilities, perceptual reasoning abilities, and processing speed. Motor functioning closest to time of neuropsychological testing was associated with processing speed. There were more children with subcortical lesions with no/mild motor deficit, whereas there were more children with cortical + subcortical lesions with moderate/severe motor deficits. Associations between motor functioning during early stroke recovery and intellectual abilities may be related to neuroplastic changes post-injury, resulting in early motor deficits and affecting subsequent development of intellectual abilities through hierarchical maturational processes, whereas motor functioning closer to neuropsychological testing reflects maturational recovery processes augmented by intervention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".