Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30034998›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2018

Predicting language outcomes after stroke: Is structural disconnection a useful predictor?

Thomas M H Hope, Alex P Leff, Cathy J Price

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Accelerated brain aging and anterior white matter hyperintensity burden in chronic post-stroke aphasia: a lesion-aware MRI analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Acute-Phase Machine Learning Prediction of 12-Month Aphasia and Discourse Recovery.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Precision-Optimised Post-Stroke Prognoses.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Insights gained over 60 years on factors shaping post-stroke aphasia recovery: A commentary on Vignolo (1964).Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The elusive metric of lesion load.Brain structure & function · 2023
    Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas M H HopeWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, UK. Electronic address: t.hope@ucl.ac.uk.
Alex P LeffInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, UK; Department of Brain, Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK.
Cathy J PriceWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, UK.
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K022563/1Medical Research Council MR/M023672/1Wellcome Trust 205103/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many years, researchers have sought to understand whether and when stroke survivors with acquired language impairment (aphasia) will recover. There is broad agreement that lesion location information should play some role in these predictions, but still no consensus on the best or right way to encode that information. Here, we address the emerging emphasis on the structural connectome in this work - specifically the claim that disrupted white matter connectivity conveys important, unique prognostic information for stroke survivors with aphasia. Our sample included 818 stroke patients extracted from the PLORAS database, which associates structural MRI from stroke patients with language assessment scores from the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT) and basic demographic. Patients were excluded when their lesions were too diffuse or small (<1 cm3) to be detected by the Automatic Lesion Identification toolbox, which we used to encode patients' lesions as binary lesion images in standard space. Lesions were encoded using the 116 regions defined by the Automatic Anatomical Labelling atlas. We examined prognostic models driven by both "lesion load" in these regions (i.e. the proportion of each region destroyed by each patient's lesion), and by the disconnection of the white matter connections between them which was calculated via the Network Modification toolbox. Using these data, we build a series of prognostic models to predict first one ("naming"), and then all of the language scores defined by the CAT. We found no consistent evidence that connectivity disruption data in these models improved our ability to predict any language score. This may be because the connectivity disruption variables are strongly correlated with the lesion load variables: correlations which we measure both between pairs of variables in their original form, and between principal components of both datasets. Our conclusion is that, while both types of structural brain data do convey useful, prognostic information in this domain, they also appear to convey largely the same variance. We conclude that connectivity disruption variables do not help us to predict patients' language skills more accurately than lesion location (load) data alone.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAphasiaBrainFemaleFunctional LateralityHumansLanguageLanguage DisordersLanguage TestsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRecovery of FunctionStrokeAphasiaConnectomicsLanguageMRIOutcomesStrokeWhite matter

Identifiers

PMID30034998
PMCPMC6051761
OpenAlexW2794682281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.