Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Subcortical aphasia and neglect in acute stroke: the role of cortical hypoperfusion

Open access
Hillis, A. E., Wityk, R. J., Barker, P. B., Beauchamp, N. J., Gailloud, P., Murphy, K., Cooper, O., Metter, E. J.·2002·Brain

Abstract

We have hypothesized that most cases of aphasia or hemispatial neglect due to acute, subcortical infarct can be accounted for by concurrent cortical hypoperfusion. To test this hypothesis, we demonstrate: (i) that pure subcortical infarctions are associated with cortical hypoperfusion in subjects with aphasia/neglect; (ii) that reversal of cortical hypoperfusion is associated with resolution of the aphasia; and (iii) that aphasia/neglect strongly predicts cortical ischaemia and/or hypoperfusion. We prospectively evaluated a consecutive series of 115 patients who presented within 24 h of onset or progression of stroke symptoms, with MRI sequences including diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion weighted imaging (PWI), and detailed testing for aphasia or hemispatial neglect. The association between aphasia or neglect and cortical infarct (or dense ischaemia) on DWI and cortical hypoperfusion indicated by PWI, was evaluated with chi-squared analyses. Fisher exact tests were used for analyses with small samples. Cases of DWI lesion restricted to subcortical white matter and/or grey matter structures (n = 44) were examined for the presence of aphasia or neglect, and for the presence of cortical hypoperfusion. In addition, subjects who received intervention to restore perfusion were evaluated with DWI, PWI, and cognitive tests before and after intervention. Finally, the positive predictive value of the cognitive deficits for identifying cortical abnormalities on DWI and PWI were calculated from all patients. Of the subjects with only subcortical lesions on DWI in this study (n = 44), all those who had aphasia or neglect showed concurrent cortical hypoperfusion. Among the patients who received intervention that successfully restored cortical perfusion, 100% (six out of six) showed immediate resolution of aphasia. In the 115 patients, aphasia and neglect were much more strongly associated with cortical hypoperfusion (chi(2) = 57.3 for aphasia; chi(2) = 28.7 for neglect; d.f. = 1; P < 0.000001 for each), than with cortical infarct/ischaemia on DWI (chi(2) = 8.5 for aphasia; chi(2) = 9.7 for neglect; d.f. = 1; P < 0.005 for each). Aphasia showed a much higher positive predictive value for cortical abnormality on PWI (95%) than on DWI (62%), as did neglect (100% positive predictive value for PWI versus 74% for DWI). From these data we conclude that aphasia and neglect due to acute subcortical stroke can be largely explained by cortical hypoperfusion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awf113

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 296

Metadata

Authors
Hillis, A. E., Wityk, R. J., Barker, P. B., Beauchamp, N. J., Gailloud, P., Murphy, K., Cooper, O., & Metter, E. J.
Venue
Brain
Published
2002-05
Volume
125
Issue
5
Pages
1094-1104
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2138789529
Cited by
296
References
0
FWCI
7.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Subcortical aphasia and neglect in acute stroke: the role of cortical hypoperfusion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/awf113
The paper
Hillis, A. E., Wityk, R. J., Barker, P. B., Beauchamp, N. J., Gailloud, P., Murphy, K., Cooper, O., & Metter, E. J. (2002). Subcortical aphasia and neglect in acute stroke: the role of cortical hypoperfusion. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awf113

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.