Abstract

The proportional recovery rule (PRR) posits that most stroke survivors can expect to reduce a fixed proportion of their motor impairment. As a statistical model, the PRR explicitly relates change scores to baseline values - an approach that has the potential to introduce artifacts and flawed conclusions. We describe approaches that can assess associations between baseline and changes from baseline while avoiding artifacts due either to mathematical coupling or regression to the mean due to measurement error. We also describe methods that can compare different biological models of recovery. Across several real datasets, we find evidence for non-artifactual associations between baseline and change, and support for the PRR compared to alternative models. We conclude that the PRR remains a biologically-relevant model of recovery, and also introduce a statistical perspective that can be used to assess future models.