ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Corticospinal and corticoreticulospinal projections benefit motor behaviors in chronic stroke.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
After corticospinal tract (CST) stroke, several motor deficits in the upper extremity (UE) emerge, including diminished muscle strength, motor control, and muscle individuation. Both the ipsilesional CST and contralesional corticoreticulospinal tract (CReST) innervate the paretic UE and may have different innervation patterns for the proximal and distal UE segments. These patterns may underpin distinct pathway relationships to separable motor behaviors. In this cross-sectional study of 15 chronic stroke patients and 28 healthy subjects, we examined two key questions: (1) whether segmental motor behaviors differentially relate to ipsilesional CST and contralesional CReST projection strengths, and (2) whether motor behaviors segmentally differ in the paretic UE. We measured strength, motor control, and muscle individuation in a proximal (biceps, BIC) and distal muscle (first dorsal interosseous, FDI) of the paretic UE. We measured the projection strengths of the ipsilesional CST and contralesional CReST to these muscles using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Stroke subjects had abnormal motor control and muscle individuation despite strength comparable to healthy subjects. In stroke subjects, stronger ipsilesional CST projections were linked to superior motor control in both UE segments, whereas stronger contralesional CReST projections were linked to superior muscle strength and individuation in both UE segments. Notably, both pathways also shared associations with behaviors in the proximal segment. Motor control deficits were segmentally comparable, but muscle individuation was worse for distal motor performance. These results suggest that each pathway has specialized contributions to chronic motor behaviors but also work together, with varying levels of success in supporting chronic deficits. Key points summary: Individuals with chronic stroke typically have deficits in strength, motor control, and muscle individuation in their paretic upper extremity (UE). It remains unclear how these altered behaviors relate to descending motor pathways and whether they differ by proximal and distal UE segment.In this study, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to examine projection strengths of the ipsilesional corticospinal tract (CST) and contralesional corticoreticulospinal tract (CReST) with respect to quantitated motor behaviors in chronic stroke.We found that stronger ipsilesional CST projections were associated with better motor control in both UE segments, whereas stronger contralesional CReST projections were associated with better strength and individuation in both UE segments. In addition, projections of both pathways shared associations with motor behaviors in the proximal UE segment.We also found that deficits in strength and motor control were comparable across UE segments, but muscle individuation was worse with controlled movement in the distal UE segment.These results suggest that the CST and CReST have specialized contributions to chronic motor behaviors and also work together, although with different degrees of efficacy.
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.