Ancrod in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies of multiple-day dosing with the defibrinogenating agent, ancrod, in acute ischemic stroke yielded conflicting results but suggested that a brief dosing regimen might improve efficacy and safety. The Ancrod Stroke Program was designed to test this concept in subjects beginning ancrod or placebo within 6 hours of the onset of acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: Five hundred subjects with acute ischemic stroke who could begin receiving study material within 6 hours of symptom onset were infused intravenously with either ancrod (0.167 IU/kg per hour) or placebo over 2 or 3 hours. The primary efficacy outcome was a dichotomized, modified Rankin score at 90 days with less stringent cut-points for higher prestroke modified Rankin score and pretreatment NIHSS total score ("responder analysis"). Safety variables included mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: Although the desired changes in fibrinogen level were seen in >90% of ancrod subjects, interim analysis for futility led to the study being halted for lack of efficacy. Positive responder status in the interim dataset was seen in 39.6% of ancrod subjects and 37.2% of placebo subjects (P=0.47). Ninety-day mortality did not differ between the 2 groups (ancrod, 15.6%; placebo, 14.1%; P=0.32), and the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within the first 72 hours, although not significantly different in ancrod compared to placebo subjects (P=0.19), was approximately twice as high (3.9% vs 2.0%; P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that intravenous ancrod starting within 6 hours after symptom onset in a broad selection of subjects with ischemic stroke did not improve their outcome and revealed a trend to increased bleeding despite successful efforts to achieve rapid initial defibrinogenation and avoid prolonged hypofibrinogenemia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".