TY - JOUR
T1 - Predicting upper limb motor impairment recovery after stroke: a mixture model
AU - Vliet, Rick
AU - Selles, Ruud W.
AU - Andrinopoulou, Eleni‐Rosalina
AU - Nijland, Rinske
AU - Ribbers, Gerard M.
AU - Frens, Maarten A.
AU - Meskers, Carel
AU - Kwakkel, Gert
PY - 2020/3/1
Y1 - 2020/3/1
N2 - Objective: Spontaneous recovery is an important determinant of upper extremity recovery after stroke and has been described by the 70% proportional recovery rule for the Fugl–Meyer motor upper extremity (FM-UE) scale. However, this rule is criticized for overestimating the predictability of FM-UE recovery. Our objectives were to develop a longitudinal mixture model of FM-UE recovery, identify FM-UE recovery subgroups, and internally validate the model predictions. Methods: We developed an exponential recovery function with the following parameters: subgroup assignment probability, proportional recovery coefficient r k, time constant in weeks τ k, and distribution of the initial FM-UE scores. We fitted the model to FM-UE measurements of 412 first-ever ischemic stroke patients and cross-validated endpoint predictions and FM-UE recovery cluster assignment. Results: The model distinguished 5 subgroups with different recovery parameters (r 1 = 0.09, τ 1 = 5.3, r 2 = 0.46, τ 2 = 10.1, r 3 = 0.86, τ 3 = 9.8, r 4 = 0.89, τ 4 = 2.7, r 5 = 0.93, τ 5 = 1.2). Endpoint FM-UE was predicted with a median absolute error of 4.8 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.3–12.8) at 1 week poststroke and 4.2 (IQR = 1.3–9.8) at 2 weeks. Overall accuracy of assignment to the poor (subgroup 1), moderate (subgroups 2 and 3), and good (subgroups 4 and 5) FM-UE recovery clusters was 0.79 (95% equal-tailed interval [ETI] = 0.78–0.80) at 1 week poststroke and 0.81 (95% ETI = 0.80–0.82) at 2 weeks. Interpretation: FM-UE recovery reflects different subgroups, each with its own recovery profile. Cross-validation indicates that FM-UE endpoints and FM-UE recovery clusters can be well predicted. Results will contribute to the understanding of upper limb recovery patterns in the first 6 months after stroke. ANN NEUROL 2020;87:383–393 Ann Neurol 2020;87:383–393.
AB - Objective: Spontaneous recovery is an important determinant of upper extremity recovery after stroke and has been described by the 70% proportional recovery rule for the Fugl–Meyer motor upper extremity (FM-UE) scale. However, this rule is criticized for overestimating the predictability of FM-UE recovery. Our objectives were to develop a longitudinal mixture model of FM-UE recovery, identify FM-UE recovery subgroups, and internally validate the model predictions. Methods: We developed an exponential recovery function with the following parameters: subgroup assignment probability, proportional recovery coefficient r k, time constant in weeks τ k, and distribution of the initial FM-UE scores. We fitted the model to FM-UE measurements of 412 first-ever ischemic stroke patients and cross-validated endpoint predictions and FM-UE recovery cluster assignment. Results: The model distinguished 5 subgroups with different recovery parameters (r 1 = 0.09, τ 1 = 5.3, r 2 = 0.46, τ 2 = 10.1, r 3 = 0.86, τ 3 = 9.8, r 4 = 0.89, τ 4 = 2.7, r 5 = 0.93, τ 5 = 1.2). Endpoint FM-UE was predicted with a median absolute error of 4.8 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.3–12.8) at 1 week poststroke and 4.2 (IQR = 1.3–9.8) at 2 weeks. Overall accuracy of assignment to the poor (subgroup 1), moderate (subgroups 2 and 3), and good (subgroups 4 and 5) FM-UE recovery clusters was 0.79 (95% equal-tailed interval [ETI] = 0.78–0.80) at 1 week poststroke and 0.81 (95% ETI = 0.80–0.82) at 2 weeks. Interpretation: FM-UE recovery reflects different subgroups, each with its own recovery profile. Cross-validation indicates that FM-UE endpoints and FM-UE recovery clusters can be well predicted. Results will contribute to the understanding of upper limb recovery patterns in the first 6 months after stroke. ANN NEUROL 2020;87:383–393 Ann Neurol 2020;87:383–393.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078663363&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.25679
DO - https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.25679
M3 - Article
C2 - 31925838
SN - 0364-5134
VL - 87
SP - 383
EP - 393
JO - Annals of neurology
JF - Annals of neurology
IS - 3
ER -