Cargando…

The structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery

Stroke patients vary considerably in terms of outcomes: some patients present ‘natural’ recovery proportional to their initial impairment (fitters), while others do not (non-fitters). Thus, a key challenge in stroke rehabilitation is to identify individual recovery potential to make personalized dec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koch, Philipp J, Park, Chang-Hyun, Girard, Gabriel, Beanato, Elena, Egger, Philip, Evangelista, Giorgia Giulia, Lee, Jungsoo, Wessel, Maximilian J, Morishita, Takuya, Koch, Giacomo, Thiran, Jean-Philippe, Guggisberg, Adrian G, Rosso, Charlotte, Kim, Yun-Hee, Hummel, Friedhelm C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8370413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34237143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab082
_version_ 1783739439748481024
author Koch, Philipp J
Park, Chang-Hyun
Girard, Gabriel
Beanato, Elena
Egger, Philip
Evangelista, Giorgia Giulia
Lee, Jungsoo
Wessel, Maximilian J
Morishita, Takuya
Koch, Giacomo
Thiran, Jean-Philippe
Guggisberg, Adrian G
Rosso, Charlotte
Kim, Yun-Hee
Hummel, Friedhelm C
author_facet Koch, Philipp J
Park, Chang-Hyun
Girard, Gabriel
Beanato, Elena
Egger, Philip
Evangelista, Giorgia Giulia
Lee, Jungsoo
Wessel, Maximilian J
Morishita, Takuya
Koch, Giacomo
Thiran, Jean-Philippe
Guggisberg, Adrian G
Rosso, Charlotte
Kim, Yun-Hee
Hummel, Friedhelm C
author_sort Koch, Philipp J
collection PubMed
description Stroke patients vary considerably in terms of outcomes: some patients present ‘natural’ recovery proportional to their initial impairment (fitters), while others do not (non-fitters). Thus, a key challenge in stroke rehabilitation is to identify individual recovery potential to make personalized decisions for neuro-rehabilitation, obviating the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. This goal requires (i) the prediction of individual courses of recovery in the acute stage; and (ii) an understanding of underlying neuronal network mechanisms. ‘Natural’ recovery is especially variable in severely impaired patients, underscoring the special clinical importance of prediction for this subgroup. Fractional anisotropy connectomes based on individual tractography of 92 patients were analysed 2 weeks after stroke (TA) and their changes to 3 months after stroke (TC − TA). Motor impairment was assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FMUE) scale. Support vector machine classifiers were trained to separate patients with natural recovery from patients without natural recovery based on their whole-brain structural connectomes and to define their respective underlying network patterns, focusing on severely impaired patients (FMUE < 20). Prediction accuracies were cross-validated internally, in one independent dataset and generalized in two independent datasets. The initial connectome 2 weeks after stroke was capable of segregating fitters from non-fitters, most importantly among severely impaired patients (TA: accuracy = 0.92, precision = 0.93). Secondary analyses studying recovery-relevant network characteristics based on the selected features revealed (i) relevant differences between networks contributing to recovery at 2 weeks and network changes over time (TC − TA); and (ii) network properties specific to severely impaired patients. Important features included the parietofrontal motor network including the intraparietal sulcus, premotor and primary motor cortices and beyond them also attentional, somatosensory or multimodal areas (e.g. the insula), strongly underscoring the importance of whole-brain connectome analyses for better predicting and understanding recovery from stroke. Computational approaches based on structural connectomes allowed the individual prediction of natural recovery 2 weeks after stroke onset, especially in the difficult to predict group of severely impaired patients, and identified the relevant underlying neuronal networks. This information will permit patients to be stratified into different recovery groups in clinical settings and will pave the way towards personalized precision neurorehabilitative treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8370413
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83704132021-08-18 The structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery Koch, Philipp J Park, Chang-Hyun Girard, Gabriel Beanato, Elena Egger, Philip Evangelista, Giorgia Giulia Lee, Jungsoo Wessel, Maximilian J Morishita, Takuya Koch, Giacomo Thiran, Jean-Philippe Guggisberg, Adrian G Rosso, Charlotte Kim, Yun-Hee Hummel, Friedhelm C Brain Original Articles Stroke patients vary considerably in terms of outcomes: some patients present ‘natural’ recovery proportional to their initial impairment (fitters), while others do not (non-fitters). Thus, a key challenge in stroke rehabilitation is to identify individual recovery potential to make personalized decisions for neuro-rehabilitation, obviating the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. This goal requires (i) the prediction of individual courses of recovery in the acute stage; and (ii) an understanding of underlying neuronal network mechanisms. ‘Natural’ recovery is especially variable in severely impaired patients, underscoring the special clinical importance of prediction for this subgroup. Fractional anisotropy connectomes based on individual tractography of 92 patients were analysed 2 weeks after stroke (TA) and their changes to 3 months after stroke (TC − TA). Motor impairment was assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FMUE) scale. Support vector machine classifiers were trained to separate patients with natural recovery from patients without natural recovery based on their whole-brain structural connectomes and to define their respective underlying network patterns, focusing on severely impaired patients (FMUE < 20). Prediction accuracies were cross-validated internally, in one independent dataset and generalized in two independent datasets. The initial connectome 2 weeks after stroke was capable of segregating fitters from non-fitters, most importantly among severely impaired patients (TA: accuracy = 0.92, precision = 0.93). Secondary analyses studying recovery-relevant network characteristics based on the selected features revealed (i) relevant differences between networks contributing to recovery at 2 weeks and network changes over time (TC − TA); and (ii) network properties specific to severely impaired patients. Important features included the parietofrontal motor network including the intraparietal sulcus, premotor and primary motor cortices and beyond them also attentional, somatosensory or multimodal areas (e.g. the insula), strongly underscoring the importance of whole-brain connectome analyses for better predicting and understanding recovery from stroke. Computational approaches based on structural connectomes allowed the individual prediction of natural recovery 2 weeks after stroke onset, especially in the difficult to predict group of severely impaired patients, and identified the relevant underlying neuronal networks. This information will permit patients to be stratified into different recovery groups in clinical settings and will pave the way towards personalized precision neurorehabilitative treatment. Oxford University Press 2021-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8370413/ /pubmed/34237143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab082 Text en © The Author(s) (2021). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Articles
Koch, Philipp J
Park, Chang-Hyun
Girard, Gabriel
Beanato, Elena
Egger, Philip
Evangelista, Giorgia Giulia
Lee, Jungsoo
Wessel, Maximilian J
Morishita, Takuya
Koch, Giacomo
Thiran, Jean-Philippe
Guggisberg, Adrian G
Rosso, Charlotte
Kim, Yun-Hee
Hummel, Friedhelm C
The structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery
title The structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery
title_full The structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery
title_fullStr The structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery
title_full_unstemmed The structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery
title_short The structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery
title_sort structural connectome and motor recovery after stroke: predicting natural recovery
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8370413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34237143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab082
work_keys_str_mv AT kochphilippj thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT parkchanghyun thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT girardgabriel thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT beanatoelena thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT eggerphilip thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT evangelistagiorgiagiulia thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT leejungsoo thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT wesselmaximilianj thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT morishitatakuya thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT kochgiacomo thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT thiranjeanphilippe thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT guggisbergadriang thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT rossocharlotte thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT kimyunhee thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT hummelfriedhelmc thestructuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT kochphilippj structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT parkchanghyun structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT girardgabriel structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT beanatoelena structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT eggerphilip structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT evangelistagiorgiagiulia structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT leejungsoo structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT wesselmaximilianj structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT morishitatakuya structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT kochgiacomo structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT thiranjeanphilippe structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT guggisbergadriang structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT rossocharlotte structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT kimyunhee structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery
AT hummelfriedhelmc structuralconnectomeandmotorrecoveryafterstrokepredictingnaturalrecovery