Every one of the 10 million yearly stroke survivors knows perfectly well that nobody knows anything exact about recovering from a stroke. Our fucking failures of stroke associations are doing nothing to solve that, rather they would put out press releases and prevention crapola.
Neural Plasticity, 2016
A
great challenge facing stroke rehabilitation is the lack of information
on how to derive targeted therapies. As such, techniques once
considered promising, such as brain stimulation, have demonstrated mixed
efficacy across heterogeneous samples in clinical studies. Here, we
explain reasons, citing its one-type-suits-all approach(Because you never created a damage diagnosis to be able to map effective stroke rehab protocols to damage. Stroke leaders are that fucking stupid) as the primary
cause of variable efficacy. We present evidence supporting the role of
alternate substrates, which can be targeted instead in patients with
greater damage and deficit. Building on this groundwork, this review
will also discuss different frameworks on how to tailor brain
stimulation therapies. To the best of our knowledge, our report is the
first instance that enumerates and compares across theoretical models
from upper limb recovery and conditions like aphasia and depression.
Here, we explain how different models capture heterogeneity across
patients and how they can be used to predict which patients would best
respond to what treatments to develop targeted, individualized brain
stimulation therapies. Our intent is to weigh pros and cons of testing
each type of model so brain stimulation is successfully tailored to
maximize upper limb recovery in stroke.(What fucking laziness. We need protocols NOT pros and cons)
No comments:
Post a Comment