ArticleBrain sciences2023
Investigating Aphasia Recovery: Demographic and Clinical Factors.
Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapy dose, recovery phase, and patient factors influencing language outcomes in post-stroke aphasia.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Exploring the Effects of a Computerized Naming Intervention Combined with Cerebellar tDCS in Cantonese-Speaking Individuals with Aphasia.Brain sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Post-stroke language recovery remains one of the main unresolved topics in the field of aphasia. In recent years, there have been efforts to identify specific factors that could potentially lead to improved language recovery. However, the exact relationship between the recovery of particular language functions and possible predictors, such as demographic or lesion variables, is yet to be fully understood. In the present study, we attempted to investigate such relationships in 42 patients with aphasia after left hemisphere stroke, focusing on three language domains: auditory comprehension, naming and speech fluency. Structural imaging data were also obtained for the identification of the lesion sites. According to our findings, patients demonstrated an overall improvement in all three language domains, while no demographic factor significantly contributed to aphasia recovery. Interestingly, specific lesion loci seemed to have a differential effect on language performance, depending on the time of testing (i.e., acute/subacute vs. chronic phase). We argue that this variability concerning lesion-deficit associations reflects the dynamic nature of aphasia and further discuss possible explanations in the framework of neuroplastic changes during aphasia recovery.
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.