MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Review: Insufficient evidence exists to determine the benefits and risks of statins for acute ischemic stroke or TIA

2011· letter· en· W1988921227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert L. Trowbridge

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)NeurologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialStatinPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ACP Journal Club20 December 2011Review: Insufficient evidence exists to determine the benefits and risks of statins for acute ischemic stroke or TIARobert L. Trowbridge, MDRobert L. Trowbridge, MDMaine Medical Center, Portland, Maine USA (R.L.T.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-12-201112200-02006 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationSquizzato A, Romualdi E, Dentali F, Ageno W. Statins for acute ischemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD007551. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21833959Clinical Impact RatingsGIM/FP/GP: Hospitalists: Neurology: References1 Lees KR, Bluhmki E, von Kummer R, et al. Time to treatment with intravenous alteplase and outcome in stroke: an updated pooled analysis of ECASS, ATLANTIS, NINDS, and EPITHET trials. Lancet. 2010;375:1695-703. [PMID: 20472172] Google Scholar2 Gladstone DJ, Black SE, Hakim AM; Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario Centre of Excellence in Stroke Recovery. Toward wisdom from failure: lessons from neuroprotective stroke trials and new therapeutic directions. Stroke. 2002;33:2123-36. [PMID: 12154275] Google Scholar3 Goldstein LB. Statins and ischemic stroke severity: cytoprotection. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2009;11:296-300. [PMID: 19500493] Google Scholar4 Amarenco P, Labreuche J. Lipid management in the prevention of stroke: review and updated meta-analysis of statins for stroke prevention. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:453-63. [PMID: 19375663] Google Scholar5 Blanco M, Nombela F, Castellanos M, et al. Statin treatment withdrawal in ischemic stroke: a controlled randomized study. Neurology. 2007;69:904-10. [PMID: 17724294] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Robert L. Trowbridge, MDAffiliations: Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine USA (R.L.T.)This article was published at Annals.org on 6 December 2011. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byThe neurovascular unit and combination treatment strategies for stroke 20 December 2011Volume 155, Issue 12Page: JC6-6KeywordsClinical trialsDatabasesDrugsHemorrhageIschemic strokeMortalitySafetyStatinsStrokeTransient ischemic attacks ePublished: 20 December 2011 Issue Published: 20 December 2011 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2011 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal Medicine→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→