MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Albumin in Acute Stroke Trial (ALIAS); Design and Methodology

2007· article· en· W2106353584 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Hill, Claudia S. Moy, Yuko Y. Palesch, Renee Martin, Catherine Dillon, Bonnie D. Waldman, Lynn Patterson, Isabel Méndez, Karla J. Ryckborst, Diego Tamariz, Myron D. Ginsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAliasStroke (engine)Acute strokeClinical trialClinical neurologyAlbuminHuman albuminIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNeuroscienceData miningTissue plasminogen activator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Stroke is a serious global illness. Human albumin has emerged as a putative therapy for ischaemic stroke based on strong evidence from animal models. Following confirmation of the safety and feasibility of high-dose albumin treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in a pilot study, the Albumin in Acute Stroke trial, a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial was initiated to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose albumin compared to saline control within 5 h of ischaemic stroke onset. METHODS: The trial will enrol 1800 patients in two cohorts--a thrombolytic and a nonthrombolytic arm. High-dose (2 g/kg) human albumin will be administered in a 2-h straight intravenous infusion to ischaemic stroke patients, within 5 h of symptom onset. The primary outcome will be an NIH stroke scale score of 0-1 or a modified Rankin scale score of 0-1 at 90 days. Safety outcomes will include the incidence of congestive heart failure after study-drug administration. RESULTS: Enrolment opened at 40 sites in August 2006; new sites continue to be added. Recruitment is ongoing and is projected to be completed by 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The trial will continue through 2010. The study is proceeding as planned.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207