MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162914074 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.051322

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial

2006· article· en· W2162914074 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Woei‐Cherng Shyu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademia SinicaNational Science Council
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorClinical trialCerebral infarctionAdverse effectInternal medicineAnesthesiaPhysical therapyIschemiaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Because granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties and is known to mobilize stem cells, it may be useful in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. We sought to examine the feasibility, safety and efficacy of using G-CSF to treat acute stroke. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, blinded controlled trial involving 10 patients with acute cerebral infarction (middle cerebral artery territory as documented by the admission MRI) who presented within 7 days of onset and whose scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) were between 9 and 20. Patients were assigned to either G-CSF therapy or usual care. The G-CSF group (n = 7) received subcutaneous G-CSF injections (15 microg/kg per day) for 5 days. The primary outcome was percentage changes between baseline and 12-month follow-up in mean group scores on 4 clinical scales: the NIHSS, European Stroke Scale (ESS), ESS Motor Subscale (EMS) and Barthel Index (BI). We also assessed neurologic functioning using PET to measure cerebral uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose in the cortical areas surrounding the ischemic core. RESULTS: All of the patients completed the 5-day course of treatment, and none were lost to follow-up. No severe adverse effects were seen in patients receiving G-CSF. There was greater improvement in neurologic functioning between baseline and 12-month follow-up in the G-CSF group than in the control group (NIHSS: 59% change in the mean G-CSF group score v. 36% in the mean control group score, ESS: 33% v. 20%, EMS: 106% v. 58%, BI: 120% v. 60%). Although at 12 months there was no difference between the 2 groups in cerebral uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose in the ischemic core, uptake in the area surrounding the core was significantly improved in the G-CSF group compared with the control group. There was positive correlation between metabolic activity and EMS score following simple linear correlation analysis. INTERPRETATION: Our preliminary evidence suggests that using G-CSF as therapy for acute stroke is safe and feasible and leads to improved neurologic outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations207
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207