ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2025
Predicting response to non-invasive brain stimulation in post-stroke upper extremity motor impairment: the importance of neurophysiological and clinical biomarkers.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising approach to enhance upper extremity motor impairment (UEMI) recovery in post-stroke individuals. However, variability in treatment response poses a significant challenge. Identifying neurophysiological and clinical biomarkers that predict NIBS response could improve personalization and treatment efficacy.
objectivesThis study aims to determine the predictive relevance of neurophysiological and clinical biomarkers for responses to NIBS in post-stroke UEMI using a machine learning model.
methodsThis secondary analysis involved 63 post-stroke individuals with UEMI (age 56.9 ± 11.1 years). A support vector machine model was used to assess the importance of two neurophysiological biomarkers-brain activity in the lesioned hemisphere quantified using quantitative electroencephalography (power ratio index, PRI) and corticospinal tract (CST) integrity assessed via transcranial magnetic stimulation-and one clinical biomarker-the level of UEMI assessed with Fugl-Meyer upper extremity (FMA-UE)-in predicting responders (ΔFMA-UE ≥ 5 points) and those with excellent response (ΔFMA-UE ≥ 10 points) to NIBS based on the change of FMA-UE before and after treatment.
resultsOf the 63 participants, 42 (65%) were classified as responders, and 14 (22%) demonstrated excellent responses. Predictive importance for responders was 0.78 for PRI-LH, 0.21 for UEMI level, and 0.01 for CST integrity. For predicting excellent responses, PRI-LH had an importance of 0.39, UEMI level 0.37, and CST integrity 0.24.
conclusionsThe study highlights the importance of electrical brain activity in the LH and UEMI level in predicting NIBS responders and excellent responses, with CST integrity being particularly valuable for excellent outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40208373What 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.