Inter-individual Variability in the Capacity for Motor Recovery After Ischemic Stroke

The Neurological Institute, Columbia University, Stroke and Critical Care Division, New York, New York

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Shyam_Prabhakaran{at}rush.edu.

	Abstract

Background. Motor recovery after stroke is predicted only moderately by clinical variables, implying that there is still a substantial amount of unexplained, biologically meaningful variability in recovery. Regression diagnostics can indicate whether this is associated simply with Gaussian error or instead with multiple subpopulations that vary in their relationships to the clinical variables. Objective. To perform regression diagnostics on a linear model for recovery versus clinical predictors. Methods. Forty-one patients with ischemic stroke were studied. Impairment was assessed using the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Motor Score. Motor recovery was defined as the change in the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Motor Score from 24 to 72 hours after stroke to 3 or 6 months later. The clinical predictors in the model were age, gender, infarct location (subcortical vs cortical), diffusion weighted imaging infarct volume, time to reassessment, and acute upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Motor Score. Regression diagnostics included a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for Gaussian errors and a test for outliers using Studentized deleted residuals. Results. In the random sample, clinical variables explained only 47% of the variance in recovery. Among the patients with the most severe initial impairment, there was a set of regression outliers who recovered very poorly. With the outliers removed, explained variance in recovery increased to 89%, and recovery was well approximated by a proportional relationship with initial impairment (recovery 0.70 x initial impairment). Conclusions. Clinical variables only moderately predict motor recovery. Regression diagnostics demonstrated the existence of a subpopulation of outliers with severe initial impairment who show little recovery. When these outliers were removed, clinical variables were good predictors of recovery among the remaining patients, showing a tight proportional relationship to initial impairment.

First published on August 8, 2007, doi:10.1177/1545968307305302

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2008;22:64.

A more recent version of this article appeared on February 1, 2008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. T. Volpe, P. T. Huerta, J. L. Zipse, A. Rykman, D. Edwards, L. Dipietro, N. Hogan, and H. I. Krebs Robotic Devices as Therapeutic and Diagnostic Tools for Stroke Recovery Arch Neurol, September 1, 2009; 66(9): 1086 - 1090. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Castel-Lacanal, P. Marque, J. Tardy, X. de Boissezon, V. Guiraud, F. Chollet, I. Loubinoux, and M. Simonetta-Moreau Induction of Cortical Plastic Changes in Wrist Muscles by Paired Associative Stimulation in the Recovery Phase of Stroke Patients Neurorehabil Neural Repair, May 1, 2009; 23(4): 366 - 372. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. H. Dobkin Progressive Staging of Pilot Studies to Improve Phase III Trials for Motor Interventions Neurorehabil Neural Repair, March 1, 2009; 23(3): 197 - 206. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. A. van Kuijk, J. W. Pasman, H. T. Hendricks, M. J. Zwarts, and A. C. H. Geurts Predicting Hand Motor Recovery in Severe Stroke: The Role of Motor Evoked Potentials in Relation to Early Clinical Assessment Neurorehabil Neural Repair, January 1, 2009; 23(1): 45 - 51. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R M Lazar, A E Speizer, J R Festa, J W Krakauer, and R S Marshall Variability in language recovery after first-time stroke J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, May 1, 2008; 79(5): 530 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]