Transforming modeling in neurorehabilitation: clinical insights for personalized rehabilitation

• Published in: Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 18 - 10
• Main Authors: Lin, David J., Backus, Deborah, Chakraborty, Stuti, Liew, Sook-Lei, Valero-Cuevas, Francisco J., Patten, Carolynn, Cotton, R James
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 04.02.2024; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Aphasia; Biological activity; Care and treatment; Case studies; Clinical translation; Collaboration; Comment; Computational modeling; Computational neuroscience; Computer simulation; Computer-generated environments; Conferences; Cooperation; Customization; Heterogeneity; Humans; Injuries; Neurological Rehabilitation; Neurology; Neurorecovery; Neurorehabilitation; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Proprioception; Questions; Rehabilitation; Rehabilitation engineering; Speaking; Speech therapy; Stroke; Stroke patients; Stroke Rehabilitation; Translation; United States; Clinical translation; Neurorehabilitation; Computational modeling; Neurorecovery; Rehabilitation engineering
• ISSN: 1743-0003; 1743-0003
• DOI: 10.1186/s12984-024-01309-w

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.