Back

Causal Analysis of Social Support on Functional Outcomes in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Study Using Synthetic Data and Advanced Inference Methods

Hu, B.; Warsif, S.

2025-05-18 health informatics
10.1101/2025.05.16.25327812 medRxiv
Show abstract

The role of social support in the recovery of stroke survivors has been a subject of considerable interest. It has been hypothesized that social support may positively influence functional outcomes through various mechanisms, including enhanced adherence to rehabilitation programs, reduced psychological stress, and improved overall well-being [1]. However, establishing a clear causal link between social support and functional recovery in stroke patients is challenging due to the presence of numerous confounding factors that can influence both the level of social support received and the extent of functional improvement. This study aimed to investigate the causal effect of high social support on functional outcomes in stroke rehabilitation patients, utilizing advanced causal inference methods applied to a large synthetic healthcare dataset. The synthetic data, generated to mirror real-world patterns while preserving patient privacy, allowed for a rigorous analysis that addressed potential confounding. The key finding of this analysis was that, after adjusting for a comprehensive set of confounders, including depression, high social support showed no significant causal effect on functional outcomes 12 months post-stroke. This result contrasts with initial unadjusted analyses that indicated a significant positive association, highlighting the critical importance of accounting for confounding in observational studies. The emergence of depression as a key confounder suggests that psychological factors may play a more significant role in rehabilitation outcomes than social support alone. These findings have important implications for the design of interventions aimed at improving functional recovery after stroke, suggesting that a focus on addressing psychological well-being alongside social support may be more effective.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.