MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412522832 · doi:10.1016/j.neurom.2025.06.004

A Narrative Review on the Current Landscape of Invasive Neuromodulation for Poststroke Motor Recovery: Mechanisms, Challenges, and Future Directions

2025· review· en· W4412522832 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotte Smets, Zhengdao Deng, Alexandra Boogers, Myles Mc Laughlin, Philippe De Vloo, Derek D. George, Bart Nuttin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekMedtronicBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsNeuromodulationNarrative reviewNarrativeNeuroscienceCurrent (fluid)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringIntensive care medicineArtElectrical engineeringCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Stroke is a leading cause of disability. Despite rehabilitation efforts, most survivors of stroke do not fully recover. Invasive neuromodulation has shown promise but has not yet become standard of care in poststroke rehabilitation. Given the inherent drawbacks of invasive modalities, a critical evaluation is warranted. This review examines invasive neuromodulation strategies for poststroke recovery, focusing on their mechanisms of action, clinical evidence, and technical challenges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured search was conducted using PubMed for studies from 2000 to 2025, with the terms ("Stroke"[MeSH] OR "Stroke Rehabilitation"[MeSH]) and ("Neurostimulation" OR "Invasive Electrical Stimulation" OR "Deep Brain Stimulation" OR "Epidural Stimulation" OR "Spinal Cord Stimulation" OR "Cortical Stimulation" OR "Cerebellar Stimulation"). Only human studies were included. Moreover, clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were cross-referenced, and preclinical studies underpinning selected clinical trials were integrated. RESULTS: Vagal nerve stimulation has received Food and Drug Administration approval, whereas motor cortex stimulation, cerebellar stimulation, and spinal cord stimulation remain investigational. These methods aim to recruit residual motor networks and promote plasticity. However, narrow cohorts, variability in stroke location and timing, differences in rehabilitation intensity, and inconsistencies in outcome measures present significant challenges to achieving consistent and broadly applicable therapeutic outcomes across trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given the risks associated with invasive techniques, a deeper understanding of their mechanisms is essential to maximizing their therapeutic potential. Nevertheless, advances in electrode technology, adaptive stimulation, and multimodal approaches hold promise for optimizing the effectiveness of invasive neuromodulation and improving patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuromodulation Technology at the Neural InterfaceSame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207