ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2025
How well can simple clinical features predict long-term language recovery after left-hemisphere glioma surgery?
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLong-term language recovery after left-hemisphere glioma surgery varies substantially across patients. We investigated how well it can be predicted using clinical variables such as the postoperative decline in language processing, tumor grade, resection volume and location, extent of resection, and intraoperative language mapping. Beyond predicting the overall recovery, we examined which domains of language processing are most prone to persistent deficits.
methodsFifty-nine patients with left-hemisphere gliomas completed the Russian Aphasia Test (RAT) before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at follow-up three to seventeen months after surgery. We modeled their average language score (Generalized Aphasia Quotient, GAQ) at follow-up using a cross-validated multiple linear regression and calculated the number of patients showing persistent deficits in each subtest of the RAT.
resultsThe difference between GAQ scores at follow-up and before surgery was not significant at the group level but varied substantially across patients (mean -1.3%, range -34.2 - 9.2%). Our best-performing model predicted the follow-up GAQ scores with the mean absolute error of 3.5% (cross-validated R
conclusionThe postoperative decline in language processing and intraoperative language mapping explain a substantial amount of variability in long-term language recovery. Verbal working memory and lexical retrieval, particularly that of verbs, are most prone to persistent deficits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39369365What 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.