ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Subtle language deficits in WAB-recovered patients at 12 months after left-hemisphere stroke.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. 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
Background: The Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R) Aphasia Quotient is the most widely used standardized post-stroke aphasia measure; its conventional 93.8 cutoff has limited sensitivity to mild residual impairment. Beyond the cutoff, it offers limited objective discourse assessment, no action-naming assessment, and naming tests limited to very common objects. Aims: We sought short tests capturing subtle aphasia in patients recovered above the WAB-R threshold, then its demographic and lesion correlates. Methods & Procedures: Sixty-seven patients with acute left-hemisphere ischemic stroke completed acute structural MRI and a 12-month language battery comprising the WAB-R, Boston Naming Test (BNT), Hopkins Action Naming Assessment (HANA), and Modern Cookie Theft (MCT) picture description. Hierarchical logistic (binary deficit) and linear (control-referenced composite z-score) regressions evaluated acute aphasia history, sex, education, age, acute depression (PHQ-9), and residualized regional lesion load. Outcomes & Results: Of 67 participants, 45 (67%) recovered above the WAB-R threshold. Of these, 18 (40%) had residual deficits on at least one supplemental test ("subtle aphasia"). BNT plus MCT content-unit count captured all 18 (100%); HANA added none beyond these two. The binary model discriminated deficit from no-deficit at AUC = 0.80 (95% CI [0.70, 1.00]); higher education significantly lowered deficit odds (OR = 0.80/year, 95% CI [0.64, 1.00], p = .049). On the continuous composite, acute PHQ-9 independently predicted 12-month outcome (β = -0.13 per point, 95% CI [-0.22, -0.04], p = .006, cumulative R Conclusions: Above the WAB-R recovery threshold, subtle aphasia is present on the BNT or MCT in ~40%, with higher education associated with lower odds at 12 months; acute depression emerged as a candidate correlate but did not survive removal of a single high-influence observation, warranting replication in larger samples. Regional lesion variables informative at greater stroke severity contribute little as large lesions cluster in the persistently aphasic group, reducing lesion variance within the recovered subgroup and its discrimination of subtle deficits. This adds to evidence that clinicians should not infer complete language recovery from the WAB-AQ alone, and that identifying residual deficits may require greater investment in behavioral assessment and consideration of alternative WAB-AQ cutoffs. Structural anatomical information, by contrast, appears to add little discriminative value at the upper performance range.
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.