MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110798604 · doi:10.1111/ijs.12044

CHIMES-I: Sub-Group Analyzes of the Effects of NeuroAiD According to Baseline Brain Imaging Characteristics among Patients Randomized in the CHIMES Study

2013· article· en· W2110798604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jose C. Navarro, Christopher Chen, Pedro Danilo J. Lagamayo, Melodia B. Geslani, Gaik Bee Eow, Niphon Poungvarin, Asita de Silva, Ka Sing Wong, Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialBaseline (sea)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: The clinical effects of neuroprotective and/or neurorestorative therapies may vary according to location and size of the ischemic injury. Imaging techniques can be useful in stratifying patients for trials that may be beneficial against particular ischemic lesion characteristics. AIM: To test the hypothesis that the efficacy of NeuroAiD compared with placebo in improving functional outcome and reducing neurological deficit in patients with cerebral infarction of intermediate severity varies between sub-groups of patients randomized in the main Chinese Medicine Neuroaid Efficacy on Stroke study when categorized according to baseline imaging characteristics. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort sub-group analysis of patients who participated in the main Chinese Medicine Neuroaid Efficacy on Stroke study, a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that recruited 1100 patients within 72 h of ischemic stroke onset with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 6-14 and were randomized to either NeuroAiD or placebo taken four capsules three times daily for three months. Review of the baseline images to classify the acute stroke lesions in terms of size, location, and extent of involvement will be performed retrospectively by two readers who will remain blinded as to treatment allocation and outcomes of the subjects. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy end-point in the main Chinese Medicine Neuroaid Efficacy on Stroke study is the modified Rankin Scale grades at three-months. Secondary efficacy end-points are the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at three-months; difference of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores between baseline and 10 days and between baseline and three-months; difference of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale sub-scores between baseline and 10 days and between baseline and three-months; modified Rankin Scale at 10 days, one-month, and three-months; Barthel index at three-months; and Mini Mental State Examination at 10 days and three-months. Analysis of these primary and secondary end-points will be performed for sub-groups defined in this study after review of the baseline brain imaging: nonlacunar and lacunar, cortical and sub-cortical, hemispheric vs. brainstem, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score <7 and 7-10, and score <8 and 8-10.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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