MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085609205 · doi:10.1159/000109254

The Past and Future of Neuroprotection in Cerebral Ischaemic Stroke

2007· review· en· W2085609205 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroprotectionMedicineTherapeutic windowClinical trialStroke (engine)Ischaemic strokeIschemiaWindow of opportunityAnimal modelCerebral ischaemiaIntensive care medicinePharmacologyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the realization that cerebral tissue may survive for hours after an ischaemic insult, several agents with neuroprotective properties in small-animal models of cerebral ischaemia have been tested in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). Initial attempts at translating the positive effects of these agents from animal models to patients were unsuccessful, possibly as a result of poorly planned experiments in models of ischaemia, and/or clinical trials of AIS that were not optimized to show a positive effect. Newer neuroprotective agents that are believed to act later in the ischaemic cascade may offer a greater chance of success. However, before these agents can be introduced into clinical practice they must undergo assessment in rodent and large-animal models of AIS and, in particular, the dose-response relationship and the treatment time window should be defined. This should be followed by evaluation in carefully designed clinical trials of adequate power, involving subjects receiving an appropriate dose within an optimum time window following the onset of symptoms. There is hope that such careful strategies may guide continued progress in neuroprotective drug development.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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