Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Showing posts with label biomarkers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biomarkers. Show all posts

Friday, August 21, 2026

Roadmap Targets Stroke Recovery With Personalized Rehab

 Not even having the goal of 100% recovery; we get biomarker crapola like this!

Roadmap Targets Stroke Recovery With Personalized Rehab

WASHINGTON -- An international task force co-led by a Georgetown University stroke expert has outlined a bold new roadmap for stroke recovery, positioning genetic and blood biomarkers to drive the next generation of precision neuro-rehabilitation and biotherapy. The framework aligns with Georgetown's strategic focus on advancing brain health and accelerating discoveries that restore function and independence after neurological injury.

The roadmap appeared August 19, 2026, in the International Journal of Stroke ("Molecular biomarkers in stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the fourth Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable").

Most stroke recovery is facilitated by either occupational, physical or speech therapy. The general consensus in the field is that all of these are beneficial and more is better. However, it is still not known how much is optimal, when is the best time to deliver therapy and which method of therapy delivery is best. As there are also real challenges in how to measure the effects of these interventions on brain plasticity in real time, molecular biomarkers could help answer such questions.

More importantly, there is now only a basic understanding of how the human brain repairs itself after a stroke. Gaining this knowledge is crucial to developing effective biotherapeutics for the recovery phase of stroke -- a time period in which there are currently no proven treatments outside of occupational, physical and speech therapy.

A competent? researcher would know of the recovery protocol that Pedro Bach-y-Rita  used to recover fully back in 1958 with only a partial brain! But you don't have competent anything in stroke! 

"There are major discoveries waiting to be made that will tell us how the human brain adapts to injury and repairs itself after a stroke. These discoveries have the potential to be extremely useful in developing new medicines or therapies that will reduce the disability that many suffer after a stroke," says Matthew A. Edwardson, MD, associate professor of neurology and rehabilitation medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine, and a member of the stroke team at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital. "Notably, the reason these discoveries have not yet been made is that most earlier stroke recovery studies were at single centers with a small number of patients with blood collected at a single time point after a stroke, or with non-specific methods of measuring stroke recovery."

Edwardson, who co-chaired the task force with Robynne Braun, MD, PhD, from the University of Maryland, also notes that much larger studies with multiple blood samples collected chronologically at the same time points for each patient, using the same outcome measures, are necessary to achieve the statistical power needed to make much more informed choices in the future.

Given that molecular innovations have dramatically advanced fields like cardiovascular disease, leading to individualized antiplatelet regimens and targeted lipid-lowering therapies, it is notable that molecular research in clinical stroke recovery has lagged behind.

Edwardson says there are multiple reasons for this lag:

· Stroke recovery studies are difficult to conduct logistically. For most acute studies, data is collected at hospital admission; after discharge the patient is called 90 days later to get outcomes over the phone. In contrast, a recovery study might require a patient to be seen again at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after a hospital discharge. This follow-up might occur at home, at a nursing facility, or at an inpatient rehabilitation facility during those various times, so it is more challenging to collect study data at these varied locations.

· Recovery studies have traditionally been expensive if they employ a rehabilitation intervention because a therapist needs to deliver the care over multiple weeks.

· There has been limited pharmaceutical industry investment in the recovery phase of stroke, so there have been few large studies in this arena.

A central pivot of the new taskforce consensus is a refreshed definition of Stroke Recovery Biomarkers. Rather than focusing solely on predicting a patient's ultimate outcome – recovery as a product -- the taskforce prioritizes understanding the underlying biology -- recovery as a process.

The taskforce made numerous suggestions to advance the field, including:

 Harmonizing molecular biomarkers in stroke recovery studies to collect blood at the same time points and collect the same outcome measures, including those for specific deficits like arm/leg weakness, speech/language disorders and cognition problems. "The crucial next step would be the analysis of the data in a rigorous manner, including replication across patient groups that are comprised of different geographic populations and/or ethnic backgrounds," Edwardson says

· Larger, international studies are needed because in other fields of medicine major discoveries using genomics did not occur until sample sizes were in the thousands. "This will require investment: funding for these larger studies, infrastructure for biorepositories to store samples in different continents, and expertise to help guide interested researchers who want to participate," he explains.

· A key principle is that recovery biomarkers should not be used to deny access to care. The taskforce discovered that upon surveying other experts in the field, many are worried that a molecular biomarker predicting that certain patients are likely to have poor recovery could be used against a patient to allow an insurance company to deny them access to rehabilitation care. "The taskforce wants to stress that molecular biomarkers should not be used in this manner to ration resources, but rather to learn more about the molecular biology of a stroke to develop new treatments," Edwardson says.

Edwardson's work in tailoring rehabilitation is ongoing. A member of the Center for Brain Plasticity and Recovery at Georgetown University and MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital, Edwardson and his Georgetown colleagues recently received a Thomas A. Reynolds III Return to Function Challenge Grant for a related study titled "Circulating Molecular Biomarkers to Monitor Cellular and Organ Remodeling During Stroke Recovery."

"The identification of a promising pipeline of biomarkers is key in brain health and stroke recovery," Edwardson says. "The next step is to rigorously validate them in larger patient populations so they can become the foundation for a new era of precision stroke rehabilitation,"

This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.

Wednesday, August 19, 2026

New roadmap aims to transform stroke recovery through personalized rehabilitation

 And since all survivors want 100% recovery this roadmap will get us there, RIGHT?  But somehow they are focused on useless biomarkers! BIOMARKERS DO NOT DELIVER RECOVERY! Are you that blitheringly stupid? 

New roadmap aims to transform stroke recovery through personalized rehabilitation

An international task force co-led by a Georgetown University stroke expert has outlined a new roadmap for stroke recovery, positioning genetic and blood biomarkers to drive the next generation of precision neurorehabilitation and biotherapy. The framework aligns with Georgetown's strategic focus on advancing brain health and accelerating discoveries that restore function and independence after neurological injury.

The roadmap appears in the International Journal of Stroke in a paper titled "Molecular biomarkers in stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the fourth Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable."

Most stroke recovery is facilitated by occupational, physical or speech therapy. The general consensus in the field is that all of these are beneficial and that more is better.

However, it is still not known how much therapy is optimal, when it is best to deliver therapy or which method of delivery is best. Because there are also challenges in measuring the effects of these interventions on brain plasticity in real time, molecular biomarkers could help answer such questions.

More importantly, there is only a basic understanding of how the human brain repairs itself after a stroke. Gaining this knowledge is crucial to developing effective biotherapeutics for the recovery phase of stroke—a period in which there are currently no proven treatments outside occupational, physical and speech therapy.

"There are major discoveries waiting to be made that will tell us how the human brain adapts to injury and repairs itself after a stroke. These discoveries have the potential to be extremely useful in developing new medicines or therapies that will reduce the disability that many suffer after a stroke," says Matthew A. Edwardson, M.D., associate professor of neurology and rehabilitation medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine and a member of the stroke team at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.

"Notably, the reason these discoveries have not yet been made is that most earlier stroke recovery studies were at single centers with a small number of patients, with blood collected at a single time point after a stroke or with nonspecific methods of measuring stroke recovery."

Edwardson, who co-chaired the task force with Robynne Braun, M.D., Ph.D., from the University of Maryland, also notes that much larger studies with multiple blood samples collected at the same time points for each patient, using the same outcome measures, are necessary to achieve the statistical power needed to make more informed choices in the future.

Given that molecular innovations have dramatically advanced fields like cardiovascular disease, leading to individualized antiplatelet regimens and targeted lipid-lowering therapies, it is notable that molecular research in clinical stroke recovery has lagged behind.

Edwardson says there are multiple reasons for this lag:

  • Stroke recovery studies are difficult to conduct logistically. For most acute studies, data are collected at hospital admission; after discharge, the patient is called 90 days later to obtain outcomes by phone. In contrast, a recovery study might require a patient to be seen again at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after discharge. This follow-up might occur at home, at a nursing facility or at an inpatient rehabilitation facility at different times, making it more challenging to collect study data at these varied locations.
  • Recovery studies have traditionally been expensive if they employ a rehabilitation intervention because a therapist needs to deliver the care over multiple weeks.
  • There has been limited pharmaceutical industry investment in the recovery phase of stroke, so there have been few large studies in this arena.

A central pivot of the new task force consensus is a refreshed definition of Stroke Recovery Biomarkers. Rather than focusing solely on predicting a patient's ultimate outcome—recovery as a product—the task force prioritizes understanding the underlying biology—recovery as a process.

The task force made numerous suggestions to advance the field, including:

  • Harmonizing molecular biomarkers in stroke recovery studies to collect blood at the same time points and collect the same outcome measures, including those for specific deficits like arm or leg weakness, speech or language disorders and cognitive problems. "The crucial next step would be the analysis of the data in a rigorous manner, including replication across patient groups that are composed of different geographic populations and/or ethnic backgrounds," Edwardson says.
  • Larger, international studies are needed because, in other fields of medicine, major discoveries using genomics did not occur until sample sizes were in the thousands. "This will require investment: funding for these larger studies, infrastructure for biorepositories to store samples on different continents, and expertise to help guide interested researchers who want to participate," he explains.
  • A key principle is that recovery biomarkers should not be used to deny access to care. In surveying other experts in the field, the task force found that many are worried that a molecular biomarker predicting certain patients are likely to have poor recovery could be used by an insurance company to deny them access to rehabilitation care. "The task force wants to stress that molecular biomarkers should not be used in this manner to ration resources, but rather to learn more about the molecular biology of a stroke to develop new treatments," Edwardson says.

Edwardson's work in tailoring rehabilitation is ongoing. A member of the Center for Brain Plasticity and Recovery at Georgetown University and MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital, Edwardson and his Georgetown colleagues recently received a Thomas A. Reynolds III Return to Function Challenge Grant for a related study titled "Circulating Molecular Biomarkers to Monitor Cellular and Organ Remodeling During Stroke Recovery."

"The identification of a promising pipeline of biomarkers is key in brain health and stroke recovery," Edwardson says.(Completely false, biomarkers don't deliver recovery!) "The next step is to rigorously validate them in larger patient populations so they can become the foundation for a new era of precision stroke rehabilitation."

More information

Molecular biomarkers in stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the fourth Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable, International Journal of Stroke (2026).

Wednesday, July 8, 2026

Towards routine biomechanical data collection in stroke rehabilitation: a usability comparison of IMU and markerless motion capture systems for functional upper-limb assessments

  'Assessments' DO NOTHING FOR RECOVERY! With no protocols based on the assessment; THIS WAS COMPLETELY FUCKING USELEESS! You're all fired! You, your mentors and senior researchers are obviously clueless on how to get survivors recovered! I'd suggest basket weaving for your mental capacity.

Towards routine biomechanical data collection in stroke rehabilitation: a usability comparison of IMU and markerless motion capture systems for functional upper-limb assessments

    We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

    Abstract

    Objective measurement of upper-limb movement quality based on biomechanical data collected in clinical routine has the potential to enable precision neurorehabilitation at scale. However, integrating biomechanical data collection into daily clinical workflows remains challenging. In this exploratory study, we evaluated the usability of two technologies for routine kinematic data collection: an IMU-based version of the instrumented Action Research Arm Test (iARAT-IMU) and a MMC markerless motion capture (MMC) system. First, five physiotherapists independently operated the iARAT-IMU across seven clinical routine assessment sessions at a rehabilitation clinic in Switzerland to quantify learning curves, setup times, and usability. Second, we conducted a preference study in which the same therapists used both, the IMU- and MMC-system, during a standardized drinking task and completed quantitative and qualitative usability assessments focusing on system preference and underlying reasons. Results show that therapists rapidly learned to operate the tablet application for scoring the iARAT; however, the IMU system added approximately 11 min of setup time and sometimes required assistance. In contrast, the MMC workflow required approximately 2 min of additional time - well within the 5-minute maximum indicated a priori by therapists as acceptable for clinical routine and received consistently higher usability ratings. Most therapists preferred this approach due to greater efficiency and reduced patient burden. These findings highlight important design considerations for future digital assessment tools and indicate that MMC systems may offer a more feasible pathway toward routine biomechanical data collection for upper-limb assessments in clinical neurorehabilitation.

    Grip Strength: An Indispensable Biomarker For Older Adults

     My doctor and therapists COMPLETELY FAILED AT RECOVERING MY LEFT HAND! So this really has no basis for me, but my right hand is stronger than ever. 

    I'd fire anyone doing prediction, biomarkers, prognistication or assessments. None of them do a damn thing at getting survivors recovered! All they do is turn on anxiety and depression!

    Grip Strength: An Indispensable Biomarker For Older Adults

    PMCID: PMC6778477  PMID: 31631989

    Abstract

    Grip strength has been proposed as a biomarker. Supporting this proposition, evidence is provided herein that shows grip strength is largely consistent as an explanator of concurrent overall strength, upper limb function, bone mineral density, fractures, falls, malnutrition, cognitive impairment, depression, sleep problems, diabetes, multimorbidity, and quality of life. Evidence is also provided for a predictive link between grip strength and all-cause and disease-specific mortality, future function, bone mineral density, fractures, cognition and depression, and problems associated with hospitalization. Consequently, the routine use of grip strength can be recommended as a stand-alone measurement or as a component of a small battery of measurements for identifying older adults at risk of poor health status.

    Monday, June 29, 2026

    Plasma metabolomic signatures of the no-reflow phenomenon in stroke patients following thrombectomy

     

    Well shit, you're describing Capillaries that don't open due to pericytes;

     known since September 2011. The whole stroke medical world IS COMPLETELY FUCKING INCOMPENT FOR NOT SOLVING THAT PROBLEM!

    Plasma metabolomic signatures of the no-reflow phenomenon in stroke patients following thrombectomy


    • 1. Department of Neurology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China

    • 2. Guilin Municipal People's Hospital, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin, China

    Abstract

    Background: 

    Although successful recanalization of the occluded artery is achieved, no-reflow phenomenon (NRP) becomes a main contributor to poor prognosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke. There are some laboratory results to represent biomarkers of the no-reflow phenomenon. However, few studies have characterized the metabolomic signature of NRP. Using high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS)-based method, this study aims to characterize the plasma metabolites associated with NRP.

    Methods: 

    A total of 34 patients with acute large vessel occlusion in anterior circulation who underwent successful thrombectomy with final angiographic expanded Treatment in Cerebral Infarction score of 2c-3 score were enrolled (19 without NRP and 15 with NRP). Fasting venous blood collected 24 h after the procedure was centrifuged and subjected to metabolomic analysis.

    Results: 

    We identified 29 differentially expressed plasma metabolites, the majority of which were phosphatidylcholine (PC) species. Among them, PC(20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)/P-16:0) showed the most significant alteration and exhibited robust predictive performance (AUC = 0.846). The most prominently disrupted metabolic pathway was glycerophospholipid metabolism, particularly PC-mediated pathways, which appeared to play a central role in the association with of NRP.

    Conclusion: 

    This study depict the plasma metabolic profile of NRP patients following stroke thrombectomy, and discover that phosphatidylcholine-dominated metabolites and related pathways may play a potential role in the occurrence of NRP. These metabolic biomarkers demonstrate promising discriminative ability and may help identify high-risk patients at an early stage, providing new targets for mechanism research and therapeutic intervention.


    More at link.

    Monday, June 22, 2026

    Development and validation of a prediction model for activities of daily living dysfunction among stroke survivors: insights from the CHARLS cohort

     I'd fire anyone doing prediction, biomarkers, prognistication or assessments. None of them do a damn thing getting survivors recovered! All they do is turn on anxiety and depression!

    Development and validation of a prediction model for activities of daily living dysfunction among stroke survivors: insights from the CHARLS cohort

      We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

      Abstract

      Background

      Activities of daily living (ADL) dysfunction is prevalent in stroke survivors and places a significant burden on both patients and healthcare systems. Improved identification of individuals with ADL dysfunction may facilitate more targeted rehabilitation strategies.

      Methods

      The China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) provided the data. A training set (n = 906) and a validation set (n = 389) were randomly selected from a total of 1,295 stroke survivors. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and multivariable logistic regression were used to select predictors and develop a prediction model, which was visualized using a nomogram. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were applied for model interpretation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration analysis, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to evaluate the model’s performance.

      Results

      Ten predictors were identified, including CES-D scores, age, sleep time duration, drinking, lung disease, social contact, falls, hypertension, arthritis, and sex. SHAP analysis identified CES-D scores as the most influential predictors. The model demonstrated acceptable discriminative ability in both the training set (AUC: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.73–0.79) and validation set (AUC: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72–0.81). Calibration was satisfactory in both the training and validation sets (Hosmer–Lemeshow test, P = 0.16 and P = 0.99, respectively). Positive clinical usefulness was suggested by DCA analysis.

      Conclusions

      The model demonstrated acceptable predictive performance and may assist in identifying individuals with prevalent ADL dysfunction. Further external validation is required before broader clinical application.

      Tuesday, June 16, 2026

      RNA gene expression and cognitive reserve as determinants of post-ischaemic stroke cognitive recovery

       

      Biomarkers do nothing for recovery unless you are mapping EXACT RECOVERY PROTOCOLS to them! You're all fired for useless shit!

      RNA gene expression and cognitive reserve as determinants of post-ischaemic stroke cognitive recovery

      Abstract

      Cognitive impairment is a common yet under-recognised complication of ischaemic stroke (IS), with long-term effects on patient quality of life and rehabilitation outcomes. Identifying early biomarkers and protective factors such as cognitive reserve (CR) is essential for improving prognosis and guiding targeted interventions. This study aimed to determine the following: (i) RNA gene expression profiling during acute stroke and (ii) the associations between target genes as well as clinical factors and cognitive impairment during an acute event and at the 3-month follow-up. A three-month prospective cohort study involving 24 adults with mild to moderate IS and 24 age- and sex-matched controls admitted to Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz, Malaysia, was conducted. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) within 48 h of stroke and at 3 months. Peripheral blood samples were collected for RNA extraction, and gene expression was analysed using RT² Profiler PCR arrays. Cognitive reserve was measured using the Cognitive Reserve Index Questionnaire (CRI-q). Statistical analyses included chi-square and independent t tests. At baseline, 83.3% of IS patients exhibited cognitive impairment (mean age 64.6 ± 10.5 years). Increased age (p = 0.006), low education level (p = 0.010), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.010), CRI-Education (p = 0.010) and CRI-Working Activity (p = 0.009) were significantly associated with baseline cognitive impairment. These clinical and CR factors survived False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction at the baseline stage (p < 0.05). However, at the 3-month follow-up, no clinical or CR factors remained statistically significant after FDR correction. Regarding gene expression, while MAPK1 (p = 0.029) and CAPZB (p = 0.042) were nominally upregulated in patients, and RCOR1 (p = 0.043) showed a nominal association with baseline impairment, no genetic markers survived FDR correction at either time point. Age, diabetes, and cognitive reserve are robust determinants of cognitive status during the acute phase of ischaemic stroke. The loss of significance at 3 months suggests these factors are primary drivers of initial functional buffering rather than long-term recovery trajectories in this cohort. CR should be utilised as a prognostic stratification tool during admission to identify high-risk patients rather than as a direct target for acute intervention. Future large-scale studies are required to validate whether the observed nominal gene expression trends can serve as reliable biomarkers for long-term recovery.

      Friday, June 5, 2026

      EEG biomarkers for assessment, prognosis, and monitoring of natural upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review

       'Assessments' DO NOTHING FOR RECOVERY! You need EXACT REHAB PROTOCOLS FOR THAT! And you're too fucking incompetent to figure that out? You're all fired!

      Biomarkers do nothing for recovery unless you are mapping EXACT RECOVERY PROTOCOLS to them!

      EEG biomarkers for assessment, prognosis, and monitoring of natural upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review

      We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

      Abstract

      Background

      Persistent upper limb deficits after stroke necessitate reliable candidate biomarkers to support precision rehabilitation. While electroencephalogram (EEG) provides a highly accessible tool to characterize post-stroke neurophysiology, its clinical translation is hindered by fragmented evidence. This systematical review critically synthesizes the directional associations between EEG biomarkers and upper limb outcomes, and introduces a novel functional framework to classify these biomarkers into assessment, prognostic, and monitoring roles for natural upper limb recovery under conventional rehabilitation.

      Methods

      A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore up to March 10, 2026. Studies investigating associations between quantitative EEG measures and upper limb motor outcomes in stroke adults were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and assessed risk of bias. Data extraction classified EEG biomarkers by assessment, prognosis, and monitoring roles.

      Results

      Forty-two studies were included, comprising 23 cross-sectional and 19 longitudinal designs. We categorized the evidence into three biomarker roles: (i) assessment, where measures like the brain symmetry index (BSI), β-band interhemispheric connectivity, and network efficiency correlated with impairment severity; (ii) prognostic, where baseline asymmetry and functional connectivity showed predictive potential; and (iii) monitoring, where longitudinal changes in oscillatory power, connectivity, and network topology paralleled functional gains. Across roles, the BSI emerged as one of the most frequently reported candidate metrics.

      Conclusion

      EEG-derived metrics, particularly the BSI, serve as frequently reported candidate biomarkers for potential clinical application in stroke rehabilitation. However, their immediate clinical translation is currently limited by the predominantly fair methodological quality of the underlying evidence. Our proposed framework helps to bridge the gap between current observational findings and future clinical utility. Future progress hinges on standardizing protocols and validating these biomarkers in large-scale rehabilitation trials to facilitate their transition toward potentially clinically useful tools.