Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090502›Full record

ArticleGeroScience2025

From data to decisions: AI and functional connectivity for diagnosis, prognosis, and recovery prediction in stroke.

Alessia Cacciotti, Chiara Pappalettera, Francesca Miraglia, Claudia Carrarini, Cristiano Pecchioli, Paolo Maria Rossini, Fabrizio Vecchio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GeroScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors.

Alessia Cacciotti *Brain Connectivity Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, Via Val Cannuta, 247, 00166, Rome, Italy.
Chiara Pappalettera *Brain Connectivity Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, Via Val Cannuta, 247, 00166, Rome, Italy.
Francesca MiragliaBrain Connectivity Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, Via Val Cannuta, 247, 00166, Rome, Italy.
Claudia CarrariniBrain Connectivity Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, Via Val Cannuta, 247, 00166, Rome, Italy.
Cristiano PecchioliBrain Connectivity Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, Via Val Cannuta, 247, 00166, Rome, Italy.
Paolo Maria RossiniBrain Connectivity Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, Via Val Cannuta, 247, 00166, Rome, Italy.
Fabrizio VecchioBrain Connectivity Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, Via Val Cannuta, 247, 00166, Rome, Italy. fabrizio.vecchio@uniecampus.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stroke is a severe medical condition which may lead to permanent disability conditions. The initial 8 weeks following a stroke are crucial for rehabilitation, as most recovery occurs during this period. Personalized approaches and predictive biomarkers are needed for tailored rehabilitation. In this context, EEG brain connectivity and Artificial Intelligence (AI) can play a crucial role in diagnosing and predicting stroke outcomes efficiently. In the present study, 127 patients with subacute ischemic lesions and 90 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were enrolled. EEG recordings were obtained from each participant within 15 days of stroke onset. Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline and at 40-days follow-up using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Functional connectivity analysis was conducted using Total Coherence (TotCoh) and Small Word (SW). Quadratic support vector machines (SVM) algorithms were implemented to classify healthy subjects compared to stroke patients (Healthy vs Stroke), determine the affected hemisphere (Left vs Right Hemisphere), and predict functional recovery (Functional Recovery Prediction). In the classification for Functional Recovery Prediction, an accuracy of 94.75%, sensitivity of 96.27% specificity of 92.33%, and AUC of 0.95 were achieved; for Healthy vs Stroke, an accuracy of 99.09%, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 98.46%, and AUC of 0.99 were achieved. For Left vs Right Hemisphere classification, accuracy was 86.77%, sensitivity was 91.44%, specificity was 80.33%, and AUC was 0.87. These findings highlight the potential of utilizing functional connectivity measures based on EEG in combination with AI algorithms to improve patient outcomes by targeted rehabilitation interventions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceElectroencephalographyStrokeStroke RehabilitationAgedCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRecovery of FunctionSupport Vector MachineAICoherenceConnectivityEEGGraphNeurorehabilitationPredictionStroke

Identifiers

PMID39090502
PMCPMC11872844

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.