ReviewNeural plasticity2016
MRI Biomarkers for Hand-Motor Outcome Prediction and Therapy Monitoring following Stroke.
Review in Neural plasticity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inflammatory profiling for precision neurorehabilitation after traumatic brain injury and stroke: a narrative review.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Predicting upper limb motor dysfunction after ischemic stroke: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based nomogram model.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging to identify cortical loci for lower limb movements and their efficacy for individuals after stroke.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Recent developments and future avenues for human corticospinal neuroimaging.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Review
- Evidence of neuroplasticity with brain-computer interface in a randomized trial for post-stroke rehabilitation: a graph-theoretic study of subnetwork analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Functional MRI evaluation of hyperbaric oxygen therapy effect on hand motor recovery in a chronic post-stroke patient: a case report and physiological discussion.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Functional MRI in Radiology-A Personal Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A New Framework to Interpret Individual Inter-Hemispheric Compensatory Communication after Stroke.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Brain Function and Upper Limb Deficit in Stroke With Motor Execution and Imagery: A Cross-Sectional Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- A Role for New Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Modalities in Daily Clinical Practice: Protocol of the Prediction of Cognitive Recovery After Stroke (PROCRAS) Study.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Predicting Training Gain for a 3 Week Period of Arm Ability Training in the Subacute Stage After Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- Therapeutic Applications of BCI Technologies.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several biomarkers have been identified which enable a considerable prediction of hand-motor outcome after cerebral damage already in the subacute stage after stroke. We here review the value of MRI biomarkers in the evaluation of corticospinal integrity and functional recruitment of motor resources. Many of the functional imaging parameters are not feasible early after stroke or for patients with high impairment and low compliance. Whereas functional connectivity parameters have demonstrated varying results on their predictive value for hand-motor outcome, corticospinal integrity evaluation using structural imaging showed robust and high predictive power for patients with different levels of impairment. Although this is indicative of an overall higher value of structural imaging for prediction, we suggest that this variation be explained by structure and function relationships. To gain more insight into the recovering brain, not only one biomarker is needed. We rather argue for a combination of different measures in an algorithm to classify fine-graded subgroups of patients. Approaches to determining biomarkers have to take into account the established markers to provide further information on certain subgroups. Assessing the best therapy approaches for individual patients will become more feasible as these subgroups become specified in more detail. This procedure will help to considerably save resources and optimize neurorehabilitative therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.