Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Data-driven biomarkers better associate with stroke motor outcomes than theory-based biomarkers.
Olafson, Emily R; Sperber, Christoph; Jamison, Keith W; Bowren, Mark D; Boes, Aaron D; Andrushko, Justin W; Borich, Michael R; Boyd, Lara A; Cassidy, Jessica M; Conforto, Adriana B; Cramer, Steven C; Dula, Adrienne N; Geranmayeh, Fatemeh; Hordacre, Brenton; Jahanshad, Neda; Kautz, Steven A; Tavenner, Bethany P; MacIntosh, Bradley J; Piras, Fabrizio; Robertson, Andrew D; Seo, Na Jin; Soekadar, Surjo R; Thomopoulos, Sophia I; Vecchio, Daniela; Weng, Timothy B; Westlye, Lars T; Winstein, Carolee J; Wittenberg, George F; Wong, Kristin A; Thompson, Paul M; Liew, Sook-Lei; Kuceyeski, Amy F.
Affiliation
  • Olafson ER; Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, NY 10021, USA.
  • Sperber C; Department of Neurology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, Bern 3012, Switzerland.
  • Jamison KW; Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, NY 10021, USA.
  • Bowren MD; Department of Neurology, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
  • Boes AD; Department of Neurology, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
  • Andrushko JW; Department of Psychiatry, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
  • Borich MR; Department of Pediatrics, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
  • Boyd LA; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
  • Cassidy JM; Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, United Kingdom.
  • Conforto AB; Division of Physical Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
  • Cramer SC; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
  • Dula AN; Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
  • Geranmayeh F; Department of Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
  • Hordacre B; Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paolo 05652-900, Brazil.
  • Jahanshad N; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-900, Brazil.
  • Kautz SA; Department Neurology, UCLA, California Rehabilitation Institute, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.
  • Tavenner BP; Department of Neurology, Dell Medical School at The University of Texas Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
  • MacIntosh BJ; Clinical Language and Cognition Group, Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, United Kingdom.
  • Piras F; Innovation, Implementation and Clinical Translation (IIMPACT) in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5000, Australia.
  • Robertson AD; Imaging Genetics Center, Mark and Mary Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
  • Seo NJ; Department of Health Sciences & Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
  • Soekadar SR; Ralph H. Johnson VA Health Care System, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
  • Thomopoulos SI; Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.
  • Vecchio D; Sandra Black Centre for Brain Resilience and Recovery, Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.
  • Weng TB; Computational Radiology and Artificial Intelligence (CRAI), Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo 0372, Norway.
  • Westlye LT; Laboratory of Neuropsychiatry, Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Rome 00179, Italy.
  • Winstein CJ; Sandra Black Centre for Brain Resilience and Recovery, Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.
  • Wittenberg GF; Schlegel-UW Research Institute for Aging, Waterloo, ON N2J 0E2, Canada.
  • Wong KA; Department of Health Sciences & Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
  • Thompson PM; Ralph H. Johnson VA Health Care System, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
  • Liew SL; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
  • Kuceyeski AF; Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité Campus Mitte (CCM), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin 10117, Germany.
Brain Commun ; 6(4): fcae254, 2024.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39171205
ABSTRACT
Chronic motor impairments are a leading cause of disability after stroke. Previous studies have associated motor outcomes with the degree of damage to predefined structures in the motor system, such as the corticospinal tract. However, such theory-based approaches may not take full advantage of the information contained in clinical imaging data. The present study uses data-driven approaches to model chronic motor outcomes after stroke and compares the accuracy of these associations to previously-identified theory-based biomarkers. Using a cross-validation framework, regression models were trained using lesion masks and motor outcomes data from 789 stroke patients from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta Analysis (ENIGMA) Stroke Recovery Working Group. Using the explained variance metric to measure the strength of the association between chronic motor outcomes and imaging biomarkers, we compared theory-based biomarkers, like lesion load to known motor tracts, to three data-driven biomarkers lesion load of lesion-behaviour maps, lesion load of structural networks associated with lesion-behaviour maps, and measures of regional structural disconnection. In general, data-driven biomarkers had stronger associations with chronic motor outcomes accuracy than theory-based biomarkers. Data-driven models of regional structural disconnection performed the best of all models tested (R 2 = 0.210, P < 0.001), performing significantly better than the theory-based biomarkers of lesion load of the corticospinal tract (R 2 = 0.132, P < 0.001) and of multiple descending motor tracts (R 2 = 0.180, P < 0.001). They also performed slightly, but significantly, better than other data-driven biomarkers including lesion load of lesion-behaviour maps (R 2 = 0.200, P < 0.001) and lesion load of structural networks associated with lesion-behaviour maps (R 2 = 0.167, P < 0.001). Ensemble models - combining basic demographic variables like age, sex, and time since stroke - improved the strength of associations for theory-based and data-driven biomarkers. Combining both theory-based and data-driven biomarkers with demographic variables improved predictions, and the best ensemble model achieved R 2 = 0.241, P < 0.001. Overall, these results demonstrate that out-of-sample associations between chronic motor outcomes and data-driven imaging features, particularly when lesion data is represented in terms of structural disconnection, are stronger than associations between chronic motor outcomes and theory-based biomarkers. However, combining both theory-based and data-driven models provides the most robust associations.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Brain Commun Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos Country of publication: Reino Unido

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Brain Commun Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos Country of publication: Reino Unido