The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable
Open accessAbstract
The most difficult clinical questions in stroke rehabilitation are “What is this patient’s potential for recovery?” and “What is the best rehabilitation strategy for this person, given her/his clinical profile?” Without answers to these questions, clinicians struggle to make decisions regarding the content and focus of therapy, and researchers design studies that inadvertently mix participants who have a high likelihood of responding with those who do not. Developing and implementing biomarkers that distinguish patient subgroups will help address these issues and unravel the factors important to the recovery process. The goal of the present paper is to provide a consensus statement regarding the current state of the evidence for stroke recovery biomarkers. Biomarkers of motor, somatosensory, cognitive and language domains across the recovery timeline post-stroke are considered; with focus on brain structure and function, and exclusion of blood markers and genetics. We provide evidence for biomarkers that are considered ready to be included in clinical trials, as well as others that are promising but not ready and so represent a developmental priority. We conclude with an example that illustrates the utility of biomarkers in recovery and rehabilitation research, demonstrating how the inclusion of a biomarker may enhance future clinical trials. In this way, we propose a way forward for when and where we can include biomarkers to advance the efficacy of the practice of, and research into, rehabilitation and recovery after stroke.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn755 · Cited by 12,881
The brain's default mode network
Raichle, M. E. (2015) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030 · Cited by 3,904
Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults
Anguera, J. A., Boccanfuso, J., Rintoul, J. L., Al-Hashimi, O., Faraji, F., Janowich, J., Kong, E., Larraburo, Y., Rolle, C., Johnston, E., et al. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12486 · Cited by 1,666
Bernhardt, J., Hayward, K. S., Kwakkel, G., Ward, N. S., Wolf, S. L., Borschmann, K., Krakauer, J. W., Boyd, L. A., Carmichael, S. T., Corbett, D., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Stroke · doi:10.1177/1747493017711816 · Cited by 1,189
Self-citationTurken, A. U., & Dronkers, N. F. (2011) · Frontiers in System Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2011.00001 · Cited by 1,012
Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales
Kasner, S. E. (2006) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(06)70495-1 · Cited by 934
He, B. J., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Epstein, A., Shulman, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2007) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.02.013 · Cited by 920
Functional potential in chronic stroke patients depends on corticospinal tract integrity
Stinear, C. M., Barber, P. A., Smale, P. R., Coxon, J. P., Fleming, M. K., & Byblow, W. D. (2006) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awl333 · Cited by 859
Self-citationCarter, A. R., Astafiev, S. V., Lang, C. E., Connor, L. T., Rengachary, J., Strube, M. J., Pope, D. L. W., Shulman, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2010) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.21905 · Cited by 767
Self-citationFunctional Neuroimaging Studies of Motor Recovery After Stroke in Adults: A Review
Calautti, C., & Baron, J.-C. (2003) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000071761.36075.a6 · Cited by 751
Cited by
Advances and challenges in stroke rehabilitation
Stinear, C. M., Lang, C. E., Zeiler, S., & Byblow, W. D. (2020) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(19)30415-6 · Cited by 792
Self-citationKwakkel, G., Lannin, N. A., Borschmann, K., English, C., Ali, M., Churilov, L., Saposnik, G., Winstein, C., van Wegen, E. E., Wolf, S. L., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Stroke · doi:10.1177/1747493017711813 · Cited by 586
BCI for stroke rehabilitation: motor and beyond
Mane, R., Chouhan, T., & Guan, C. (2020) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aba162 · Cited by 466
Belkacem, A. N., Jamil, N., Khalid, S., & Alnajjar, F. (2023) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1085173 · Cited by 80
Cappelletti, P., Filareti, M., Masuelli, L., Bei, R., Hassanzadeh, K., Corbo, M., & Feligioni, M. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-18719-2 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Boyd, L. A., Hayward, K. S., Ward, N. S., Stinear, C. M., Rosso, C., Fisher, R. J., Carter, A. R., Leff, A. P., Copland, D. A., Carey, L. M., Cohen, L. G., Basso, D. M., Maguire, J. M., & Cramer, S. C.
- Venue
- International Journal of Stroke
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 480-493
- ISSN
- 1747-4930 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-4949
- OpenAlex
- W2735740554
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 135
- FWCI
- 22.41
- 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: Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1747493017714176
- The paper
- Boyd, L. A., Hayward, K. S., Ward, N. S., Stinear, C. M., Rosso, C., Fisher, R. J., Carter, A. R., Leff, A. P., Copland, D. A., Carey, L. M., Cohen, L. G., Basso, D. M., Maguire, J. M., & Cramer, S. C. (2017). Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. International Journal of Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017714176
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.
