MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036095763 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.110.610980

The Albumin in Acute Stroke Part 1 Trial

2011· article· en· W2036095763 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Hill, Renée H. Martin, Yuko Y. Palesch, Diego Tamariz, Bonnie D. Waldman, Karla J. Ryckborst, Claudia S. Moy, William G. Barsan, Myron D. Ginsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleThrombolysisRandomizationAliasPopulationStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicineClinical trialSurgeryIschemic strokeIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Albumin in Acute Stroke (ALIAS) Part 2 Trial is directly testing whether 2 g/kg of 25% human albumin (ALB) administered intravenously within 5 hours of ischemic stroke onset results in improved clinical outcome. Recruitment into Part 1 of the ALIAS Trial was halted for safety reasons. ALIAS Part 2 is a new, reformulated trial with more-stringent exclusion criteria. Our aim was to explore the efficacy of ALB in the ALIAS Part 1 data and to assess the statistical assumptions underlying the ALIAS Part 2 Trial. METHODS: ALIAS is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial. Data on 434 subjects, comprising the ALIAS Part 1 subjects, were analyzed. We examined both the thrombolysis and nonthrombolysis cohorts combined and separately in a "target population" by excluding subjects who would not have been eligible for the ALIAS Part 2 Trial; the latter comprised patients >83 years of age, those with elevated baseline troponin values, and those with in-hospital stroke. We examined the differences in the primary composite outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 1 and/or a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 0 to 1 at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: In the combined thrombolysis plus nonthrombolysis cohorts of the target population, 44.7% of subjects in the ALB group had a favorable outcome compared with 36.0% in the saline group (absolute effect size=8.7%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 19.5%). Among thrombolyzed subjects of the target population, 46.7% had a favorable outcome in the ALB group compared with 36.6% in the saline group (absolute effect size=10.1%; 95% CI, -2.0% to 20.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results from the ALIAS Part 1 suggest a trend toward a favorable primary outcome in subjects treated with ALB and support the validity of the statistical assumptions that underlie the ALIAS Part 2 Trial. The ALIAS Part 2 Trial will confirm or refute these results. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ALIAS. Unique identifier: NCT00235495.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations62
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207