Transforming modeling in neurorehabilitation: clinical insights for personalized rehabilitation

David J. Lin,Deborah Backus,Stuti Chakraborty,Sook-Lei Liew,Francisco J. Valero-Cuevas,Carolynn Patten,R James Cotton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01309-w

2024-02-06

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Abstract:Practicing clinicians in neurorehabilitation continue to lack a systematic evidence base to personalize rehabilitation therapies to individual patients and thereby maximize outcomes. Computational modeling— collecting, analyzing, and modeling neurorehabilitation data— holds great promise. A key question is how can computational modeling contribute to the evidence base for personalized rehabilitation? As representatives of the clinicians and clinician-scientists who attended the 2023 NSF DARE conference at USC, here we offer our perspectives and discussion on this topic. Our overarching thesis is that clinical insight should inform all steps of modeling, from construction to output, in neurorehabilitation and that this process requires close collaboration between researchers and the clinical community. We start with two clinical case examples focused on motor rehabilitation after stroke which provide context to the heterogeneity of neurologic injury, the complexity of post-acute neurologic care, the neuroscience of recovery, and the current state of outcome assessment in rehabilitation clinical care. Do we provide different therapies to these two different patients to maximize outcomes? Asking this question leads to a corollary: how do we build the evidence base to support the use of different therapies for individual patients? We discuss seven points critical to clinical translation of computational modeling research in neurorehabilitation— (i) clinical endpoints, (ii) hypothesis- versus data-driven models, (iii) biological processes, (iv) contextualizing outcome measures, (v) clinical collaboration for device translation, (vi) modeling in the real world and (vii) clinical touchpoints across all stages of research. We conclude with our views on key avenues for future investment (clinical-research collaboration, new educational pathways, interdisciplinary engagement) to enable maximal translational value of computational modeling research in neurorehabilitation.

engineering, biomedical,rehabilitation,neurosciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the lack of a systematic evidence base for personalized treatment regimens in the field of neurological rehabilitation. Specifically, a key issue faced by clinicians in neurological rehabilitation practice is how to customize the most effective rehabilitation treatment regimens according to the unique situation of each patient in order to maximize the rehabilitation effect. Currently, although clinicians can provide personalized treatment recommendations based on personal experience and the specific situation of patients, this kind of personalization often lacks systematic and causal evidence support. Therefore, this paper explores how computational modeling can help build this evidence base, especially in the following aspects:

1. **Clinical endpoints**: Clarify the ultimate clinical goals of computational modeling, whether it is for diagnosis, patient stratification, or optimization of treatment parameters.
2. **Hypothesis - driven and data - driven models**: Distinguish whether computational models are hypothesis - based or data - driven. The former usually contains assumptions of causal mechanisms, while the latter is a statistical description of a large amount of data.
3. **Accuracy of biological processes**: Clearly and specifically describe the assumed biological processes and their levels of abstraction in the model, so as to better understand the differences in responses of different patients to the same treatment.
4. **Context of outcome measurement**: Understand and contextualize rehabilitation outcome measurements to ensure that the model can reflect the rehabilitation effect in the real world.
5. **Clinical and computational cooperation**: Emphasize the close cooperation between clinicians and computational scientists to promote the clinical application of neurological rehabilitation devices.
6. **Modeling in the real world**: Collect and analyze data in the actual environment. Although this will introduce new variability, it is crucial for clinical translation.
7. **Increasing clinical touchpoints**: Increase opportunities for data collection, device testing, brainstorming, and discussion throughout the research process, which helps to improve the return on investment in research.

Through these discussion points, the paper aims to provide guidance for future research, so as to better utilize computational modeling techniques and provide stronger evidence support for personalized treatment in the field of neurological rehabilitation.