000901852 001__ 901852
000901852 005__ 20211130111054.0
000901852 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033031
000901852 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0039-2499
000901852 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1524-4628
000901852 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/28902
000901852 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:103504854
000901852 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:33827246
000901852 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000644656300060
000901852 037__ $$aFZJ-2021-03867
000901852 082__ $$a610
000901852 1001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aBowman, Howard$$b0$$eCorresponding author
000901852 245__ $$aInflated Estimates of Proportional Recovery From Stroke
000901852 260__ $$aPhiladelphia, Pa.$$bLippincott Williams & Wilkins$$c2021
000901852 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000901852 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000901852 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1636039622_17824
000901852 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000901852 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000901852 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000901852 520__ $$aThe proportional recovery rule states that most survivors recover a fixed proportion (≈70%) of lost function after stroke. A strong (negative) correlation between the initial score and subsequent change (outcome minus initial; ie, recovery) is interpreted as empirical support for the proportional recovery rule. However, this rule has recently been critiqued, with a central observation being that the correlation of initial scores with change over time is confounded in the situations in which it is typically assessed. This critique has prompted reassessments of patients’ behavioral trajectory following stroke in 2 prominent papers. The first of these, by van der Vliet et al presented an impressive modeling of upper limb deficits following stroke, which avoided the confounded correlation of initial scores with change. The second by Kundert et al reassessed the value of the proportional recovery rule, as classically formulated as the correlation between initial scores and change. They argued that while effective prediction of recovery trajectories of individual patients is not supported by the available evidence, group-level inferences about the existence of proportional recovery are reliable. In this article, we respond to the van der Vliet and Kundert papers by distilling the essence of the argument for why the classic assessment of proportional recovery is confounded. In this respect, we reemphasize the role of mathematical coupling and compression to ceiling in the confounded nature of the correlation of initial scores with change. We further argue that this confound will be present for both individual-level and group-level inference. We then focus on the difficulties that can arise from ceiling effects, even when initial scores are not being correlated with change/recovery. We conclude by emphasizing the need for new techniques to analyze recovery after stroke that are not confounded in the ways highlighted here.
000901852 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252$$a5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525)$$cPOF4-525$$fPOF IV$$x0
000901852 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, Journals: juser.fz-juelich.de
000901852 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)162183$$aBonkhoff, Anna$$b1
000901852 7001_ $$00000-0003-0714-8545$$aHope, Tom$$b2
000901852 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)161406$$aGrefkes, Christian$$b3
000901852 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aPrice, Cathy$$b4
000901852 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1467823-8$$a10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033031$$gVol. 52, no. 5, p. 1915 - 1920$$n5$$p1915 - 1920$$tStroke$$v52$$x1524-4628$$y2021
000901852 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/901852/files/Bowman_2021_Stroke_Inflated%20estimates%20of...%20post%20print.pdf$$yPublished on 2021-04-08. Available in OpenAccess from 2021-10-08.
000901852 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:901852$$pdnbdelivery$$pdriver$$pVDB$$popen_access$$popenaire
000901852 9101_ $$0I:(DE-HGF)0$$60000-0003-0714-8545$$aExternal Institute$$b2$$kExtern
000901852 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)161406$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b3$$kFZJ
000901852 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$9G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252$$aDE-HGF$$bKey Technologies$$lNatural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing$$vDecoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction$$x0
000901852 9141_ $$y2021
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1190$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBiological Abstracts$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0530$$2StatID$$aEmbargoed OpenAccess
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bSTROKE : 2019$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9905$$2StatID$$aIF >= 5$$bSTROKE : 2019$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0410$$2StatID$$aAllianz-Lizenz$$d2021-02-04$$wger
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine$$d2021-02-04
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz$$d2021-02-04$$wger
000901852 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2021-02-04
000901852 920__ $$lyes
000901852 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406$$kINM-3$$lKognitive Neurowissenschaften$$x0
000901852 980__ $$ajournal
000901852 980__ $$aVDB
000901852 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000901852 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406
000901852 9801_ $$aFullTexts