ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Cognitive-motor network integration as a behavioral marker of cognitive reserve in post-stroke rehabilitation.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Functional recovery after stroke varies substantially between individuals, even after standardized inpatient rehabilitation. Cognitive reserve is increasingly considered a key determinant of recovery potential, yet it is typically approximated using indirect proxy measures that may not capture the underlying functional mechanisms of recovery. Network-based approaches may provide a more mechanistic operationalization of cognitive reserve. Objective: This study investigated whether (a) traditional cognitive reserve proxies predict rehabilitation response, (b) responders differ from non-responders in respect to baseline cognitive performance structure, and (c) rehabilitation response is associated with greater cross-domain cognitive-motor network integration at admission. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 100 patients (≥ 65 years) with ischemic stroke were included. Functional outcomes were assessed using a battery of motor tests at admission and discharge. A responder was defined as someone who improved in at least two functional domains. Cognitive performance was assessed using the CERAD battery. Cognitive reserve proxies included years of education and engagement in leisure activity domains. Group differences and predictors of responder status were examined using regression models controlling for stroke severity (NIHSS). Results: Cognitive leisure activities emerged as the strongest predictor of responder status (OR = 4.84), whereas education and other leisure domains were not retained. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two baseline cognitive dimensions (Memory, Executive-Spatial), but responders did not show significantly higher baseline cognitive scores. Network analyses demonstrated a more integrated cognitive-motor architecture in responders, characterized by higher density and lower sparsity. Dexterity and delayed verbal recall showed the highest centrality in the responder network, alongside processing speed as a consistently contributing node across centrality indices. Conclusion: Post-stroke cognitive reserve may be less dependent on a high cognitive performance or demographic proxies but may be due to a more integrative organization of cognitive-motor functioning. Our findings support a network-based conceptualization of cognitive reserve with direct implications for integrative rehabilitation strategies.
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.