The Past and Future of Neuroprotection in Cerebral Ischaemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".