Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26070983›Full record

ArticleBrain : a journal of neurology2015

Connectivity measures are robust biomarkers of cortical function and plasticity after stroke.

Jennifer Wu, Erin Burke Quinlan, Lucy Dodakian, Alison McKenzie, Nikhita Kathuria, Robert J Zhou, Renee Augsburger, Jill See, Vu H Le, Ramesh Srinivasan and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

122 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 215 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Quantitative measures of the resting EEG in stroke: a systematic review on clinical correlation and prognostic value.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer Wu1 Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA 2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Erin Burke Quinlan1 Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA 2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Lucy Dodakian2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Alison McKenzie1 Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA 3 Department of Physical Therapy, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866, USA.
Nikhita Kathuria2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Robert J Zhou2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Renee Augsburger2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Jill See2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Vu H Le2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Ramesh Srinivasan4 Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Steven C Cramer1 Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA 2 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA scramer@uci.edu.
University of California, Irvine · USChapman University · US

Funding

Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR000153 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M · 2012 to 2015
$12.1M
MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM008620 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI GOLDIN, ALAN L · 1999 to 2023
$8.1M
Motor Function after StrokeR01NS059909 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI CRAMER, STEVEN C. · 2009 to 2013
$2.0M
Brain plasticity and rehabilitation after strokeK24HD074722 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI CRAMER, STEVEN C. · 2013 to 2017
$588k
Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceTL1TR000148 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M · 2012 to 2014
$300k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000148NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000153NICHD NIH HHS K24 HD074722NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008620NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS059909
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Valid biomarkers of motor system function after stroke could improve clinical decision-making. Electroencephalography-based measures are safe, inexpensive, and accessible in complex medical settings and so are attractive candidates. This study examined specific electroencephalography cortical connectivity measures as biomarkers by assessing their relationship with motor deficits across 28 days of intensive therapy. Resting-state connectivity measures were acquired four times using dense array (256 leads) electroencephalography in 12 hemiparetic patients (7.3 ± 4.0 months post-stroke, age 26-75 years, six male/six female) across 28 days of intensive therapy targeting arm motor deficits. Structural magnetic resonance imaging measured corticospinal tract injury and infarct volume. At baseline, connectivity with leads overlying ipsilesional primary motor cortex (M1) was a robust and specific marker of motor status, accounting for 78% of variance in impairment; ipsilesional M1 connectivity with leads overlying ipsilesional frontal-premotor (PM) regions accounted for most of this (R(2) = 0.51) and remained significant after controlling for injury. Baseline impairment also correlated with corticospinal tract injury (R(2) = 0.52), though not infarct volume. A model that combined a functional measure of connectivity with a structural measure of injury (corticospinal tract injury) performed better than either measure alone (R(2) = 0.93). Across the 28 days of therapy, change in connectivity with ipsilesional M1 was a good biomarker of motor gains (R(2) = 0.61). Ipsilesional M1-PM connectivity increased in parallel with motor gains, with greater gains associated with larger increases in ipsilesional M1-PM connectivity (R(2) = 0.34); greater gains were also associated with larger decreases in M1-parietal connectivity (R(2) = 0.36). In sum, electroencephalography measures of motor cortical connectivity-particularly between ipsilesional M1 and ipsilesional premotor-are strongly related to motor deficits and their improvement with therapy after stroke and so may be useful biomarkers of cortical function and plasticity. Such measures might provide a biological approach to distinguishing patient subgroups after stroke.

Indexed as

Neuronal PlasticityAdultAgedBiomarkersCerebral CortexElectroencephalographyFemaleFunctional LateralityHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPyramidal TractsStrokeBiomarkerscoherenceconnectivitymotorstroke

Identifiers

PMID26070983
PMCPMC4840951
OpenAlexW2176015223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.