MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029312475 · doi:10.5692/clinicalneurol.49.801

Intravenous rt-PA therapy for acute ischemic stroke: efficacy and limitations

2009· review· en· W2029312475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ḱazunori Toyoda

Bibliographic record

VenueRinsho Shinkeigaku · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Tissue plasminogen activatorClinical trialAcute strokeIschemic strokeRecombinant tissue plasminogen activatorNeuroprotectionIntensive care medicineInternal medicineIschemiaModified Rankin Scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the success of the 1995 National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) study using intravenous (i.v.) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA, alteplase) within 3 hours in acute stroke, this therapy was approved worldwide and has been a standard therapy for acute stroke patients. In Japan, IV alteplase at a dose of 0.6 mg/kg was approved in 2005 after a multicenter study using this low dose of alteplase (Japan Alteplase Clinical Trial [J-ACT]). IV rt-PA can drastically improve stroke outcomes. However, more than half of treated patients are not independent in the chronic stage. In addition, the therapeutic time window was so limited that many stroke patients do not have a chance to receive the therapy. In 2008, European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study III showed that IV rt-PA administered between 3 and 4.5 hours after stroke onset significantly improved clinical outcomes in stroke patients; the success resulted in the renewal of recommendation in guidelines in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Several therapeutic strategies, including endovascular therapy, sonothrombolysis, and neuroprotective therapy, may improve the efficacy of IV rt-PA.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRinsho ShinkeigakuSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207