A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Actovegin in Patients with Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment: ARTEMIDA Study Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No drug treatment to date has shown convincing clinical evidence of restoring cognitive function or preventing further decline after stroke. The ongoing ARTEMIDA study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of Actovegin for the symptomatic treatment of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) and will explore whether Actovegin has any disease-modifying effect by assessing whether any changes are sustained after treatment. DESIGN: ARTEMIDA is a 12-month, multicentre trial in patients (planned a total of 500, now recruited) with cognitive impairment following ischaemic stroke. The study consists of a baseline screening (≤7 days after stroke), after which eligible patients are randomised to Actovegin (2,000 mg/day for up to 20 intravenous infusions followed by 1,200 mg/day orally) or placebo for a 6-month double-blind treatment period. Patients will be followed up for a further 6 months, during which time they will be treated in accordance with standard clinical practice. The primary study endpoint is change from baseline in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, cognitive subscale, extended version. Secondary outcomes include: Montreal Cognitive Assessment; dementia diagnosis (ICD-10); National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; Barthel Index; EQ-5D; Beck Depression Inventory, version II, and safety. CONCLUSION: There is a clear need for effective treatments for PSCI. ARTEMIDA should provide important insights into the use of a novel drug therapy for PSCI.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it