MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015417431 · doi:10.2174/1570159033477008

Brain Inflammation Following Intracerebral Hemorrhage

2003· article· en· W2015417431 on OpenAlexaff
Mengzhou Xue, Janani Balasubramaniam, Marc R. Del Bigio

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Neuropharmacology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflammationMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageStroke (engine)CoagulopathyPathogenesisSystemic inflammationImmunologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 15% of cerebral strokes in adults are due to bleeding into the brain (intracerebral hemorrhage, ICH). This can be related to hypertension, vascular anomalies, or coagulopathy. Prognosis following ICH is worse than that following ischemic stroke. In addition, head trauma and premature birth are associated with ICH. Inflammation occurs after ICH and might be an important part of the pathogenesis of brain damage. The goal of this review is to bring together recent diverse data concerning inflammation after ICH. There has been little investigation of the role of inflammation following ICH despite the fact that inflammation is more severe than in ischemic stroke. Inflammation in the brain follows a temporal sequence similar to that in other organs. Some cytokines and inflammatory cells may possess dual roles both deleterious and beneficial to brain after ICH. At present, experimental data only weakly support pursuit of pharmacologic anti-inflammatory strategies following ICH. Keywords: inflammation, cytokines, adhesion molecules, leukocytes, ich, brain trauma, animal models, anti-inflammation

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent NeuropharmacologySame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207