Literature DB >> 33827246

Inflated Estimates of Proportional Recovery From Stroke: The Dangers of Mathematical Coupling and Compression to Ceiling.

Howard Bowman1,2, Anna Bonkhoff3, Tom Hope4, Christian Grefkes5,6, Cathy Price4.   

Abstract

The proportional recovery rule states that most survivors recover a fixed proportion (≈70%) of lost function after stroke. A strong (negative) correlation between the initial score and subsequent change (outcome minus initial; ie, recovery) is interpreted as empirical support for the proportional recovery rule. However, this rule has recently been critiqued, with a central observation being that the correlation of initial scores with change over time is confounded in the situations in which it is typically assessed. This critique has prompted reassessments of patients' behavioral trajectory following stroke in 2 prominent papers. The first of these, by van der Vliet et al presented an impressive modeling of upper limb deficits following stroke, which avoided the confounded correlation of initial scores with change. The second by Kundert et al reassessed the value of the proportional recovery rule, as classically formulated as the correlation between initial scores and change. They argued that while effective prediction of recovery trajectories of individual patients is not supported by the available evidence, group-level inferences about the existence of proportional recovery are reliable. In this article, we respond to the van der Vliet and Kundert papers by distilling the essence of the argument for why the classic assessment of proportional recovery is confounded. In this respect, we reemphasize the role of mathematical coupling and compression to ceiling in the confounded nature of the correlation of initial scores with change. We further argue that this confound will be present for both individual-level and group-level inference. We then focus on the difficulties that can arise from ceiling effects, even when initial scores are not being correlated with change/recovery. We conclude by emphasizing the need for new techniques to analyze recovery after stroke that are not confounded in the ways highlighted here.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarkers; prognosis; recovery of function; statistics; stroke; upper extremity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33827246      PMCID: PMC7610699          DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stroke        ISSN: 0039-2499            Impact factor:   7.914


  10 in total

1.  The proportional recovery rule for stroke revisited.

Authors:  J W Krakauer; R S Marshall
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 10.422

2.  Bringing proportional recovery into proportion: Bayesian modelling of post-stroke motor impairment.

Authors:  Anna K Bonkhoff; Thomas Hope; Danilo Bzdok; Adrian G Guggisberg; Rachel L Hawe; Sean P Dukelow; Anne K Rehme; Gereon R Fink; Christian Grefkes; Howard Bowman
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 13.501

3.  Measurement of upper-extremity function early after stroke: properties of the action research arm test.

Authors:  Catherine E Lang; Joanne M Wagner; Alexander W Dromerick; Dorothy F Edwards
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.966

4.  Generalizability of the Proportional Recovery Model for the Upper Extremity After an Ischemic Stroke.

Authors:  Caroline Winters; Erwin E H van Wegen; Andreas Daffertshofer; Gert Kwakkel
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 3.919

Review 5.  The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties.

Authors:  David J Gladstone; Cynthia J Danells; Sandra E Black
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.919

6.  A modified National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale for use in stroke clinical trials: preliminary reliability and validity.

Authors:  P D Lyden; M Lu; S R Levine; T G Brott; J Broderick
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke.

Authors:  Shyam Prabhakaran; Eric Zarahn; Claire Riley; Allison Speizer; Ji Y Chong; Ronald M Lazar; Randolph S Marshall; John W Krakauer
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 3.919

8.  Recovery after stroke: not so proportional after all?

Authors:  Thomas M H Hope; Karl Friston; Cathy J Price; Alex P Leff; Pia Rotshtein; Howard Bowman
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 13.501

9.  Predicting Upper Limb Motor Impairment Recovery after Stroke: A Mixture Model.

Authors:  Rick van der Vliet; Ruud W Selles; Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou; Rinske Nijland; Gerard M Ribbers; Maarten A Frens; Carel Meskers; Gert Kwakkel
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2020-01-25       Impact factor: 10.422

10.  What the Proportional Recovery Rule Is (and Is Not): Methodological and Statistical Considerations.

Authors:  Robinson Kundert; Jeff Goldsmith; Janne M Veerbeek; John W Krakauer; Andreas R Luft
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 3.919

  10 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Precision medicine in stroke: towards personalized outcome predictions using artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Anna K Bonkhoff; Christian Grefkes
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 15.255

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.