MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038530616 · doi:10.1159/000108016

The Effects of Lifarizine in Acute Cerebral Infarction: A Pilot Safety Study

2007· article· en· W2038530616 on OpenAlexaffabout
I B Squire, K. R. Lees, William Pryse‐Phillips, Andrew Kertesz, John Bamford

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScalePlaceboStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicineAnesthesiaCerebral infarctionInfarctionClinical trialPhysical therapyIschemiaMyocardial infarctionIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: Lifarizine is a novel ion channel modulator which is neuroprotective in experimental global and focal ischemia, at doses that have minimal systemic vascular effects. This was a preliminary efficacy and safety study of lifarizine in human stroke. Methods: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, subjects with symptoms and signs of first ischemic stroke were randomized to receive lifarizine (250 µg/kg, i.v. stat. plus 60 mg b.d. orally for 5 days) or matching placebo, after stratification for age (21–74 or ≥: 75 years) and for time since stroke onset (<6 or 6–12 h). Primary end points were safety of lifarizine and functional outcome at 13 weeks, using the modified Barthel Index and the Rankin Scale. Secondary measures included the National Institutes of Health and Canadian Neurological scales. Results: Of 147 patients recruited, 117 were evaluated for efficacy analysis. Lifarizine was well tolerated; a single seizure was attributed to active treatment. Biochemical and hematological indices were unchanged. Blood pressure fell over the study period, particularly in the lifarizine group. All-patient mortality during the 3-month study was 12/75 (16%) for lifarizine and 17/72 (24%) for placebo; amongst evaluable patients, mortality was 9/63 (14%) for lifarizine and 13/54 (24%) for placebo. At 13 weeks, the improvement in functional independence in the lifarizine group versus the placebo group was 16% greater by the Rankin Scale, p = 0.52, and 11% greater by the Barthel score, p = 0.55. Conclusions: Lifarizine was well tolerated. Mortality and functional assessment data showed favorable trends. Further studies are justified to examine the efficacy of lifarizine in acute stroke.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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

Citations47
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebrovascular DiseasesSame topicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyFrench-language works237,207