MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131673806 · doi:10.1001/jama.285.13.1719

Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection for Patients With Acute Stroke

2001· article· en· W2131673806 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ralph L. Sacco, Janet T. DeRosa, E. Clarke Haley, Bruce Lubotsky Levin, Paul Ordronneau, Stephen Phillips, Rose G. Snipes, John L.P. Thompson, for the GAIN Americas Investigators

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeuroprotectionPlaceboStroke (engine)RandomizationAntagonistPopulationModified Rankin ScaleAnesthesiaInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyIschemic strokeIschemiaReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Elucidation of the ischemic cascade has helped stimulate development of neuroprotective drugs aimed at limiting brain injury in the hours following an ischemic stroke. To date, none of these drugs has shown clinical efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of gavestinel (GV150526), an antagonist of the glycine site of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, as a neuroprotective therapy for acute ischemic stroke when administered within 6 hours of symptom onset. DESIGN: The Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection (GAIN) Americas trial, a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial with enrollment from April 1998 to October 1999. SETTING: One hundred thirty-two hospital centers across the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: The primary efficacy population consisted of 1367 ischemic stroke patients with a predefined level of limb weakness and functional independence prior to stroke, stratified at randomization by age (</=75 vs >75 years) and initial stroke severity (National Institutes of Health [NIH] Stroke Scale scores of 2-5, 6-13, or >/=14). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous loading dose (800 mg) plus 5 maintenance doses (200 mg every 12 hours) of gavestinel (n = 701) or placebo (n = 666) for 3 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Functional capability at 3 months, measured by the Barthel Index (BI), with scores trichotomized as dead/0-55, 60-90, and 95-100, compared between the gavestinel and placebo groups. RESULTS: Treatment groups were well matched for baseline characteristics. For each group, median NIH Stroke Scale was 12, median age was 72 years, and median time to treatment was 5.2 hours. No statistically significant improvement on the 3-month BI trichotomy was demonstrated for gavestinel (P =.79). The proportion who were functionally independent (BI score = 95-100) was 39% in the gavestinel group and 37% in the placebo group. No statistically significant difference in 3-month survival was observed using Kaplan-Meier curves (P =.11). No other secondary end point suggested an advantage for gavestinel. Among the 333 patients (24%) who received recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator, there was also no benefit for gavestinel (P =.53). There were no serious safety issues. CONCLUSION: In this study, gavestinel administered up to 6 hours after an acute ischemic stroke did not improve functional outcome at 3 months.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations281
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207