Modafinil May Alleviate Poststroke Fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Poststroke fatigue is common and reduces quality of life. Current evidence for intervention is limited, and this is the first placebo-controlled trial to investigate treatment of poststroke fatigue with the wakefulness promoting drug modafinil. METHODS: The trial was randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled. Patients were treated with 400-mg modafinil or placebo for 90 days. Assessments were done at inclusion, 30, 90, and 180 days. The primary end point was fatigue at 90 days measured by the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 general fatigue domain. Secondary end points included the Fatigue Severity Scale, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the modified Rankin Scale and the Stroke-specific quality of Life questionnaire. Adult patients with a recent stroke achieving a score of ≥12 on the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 general fatigue domain were consecutively included. Exclusion criteria were severe cognitive disabilities and contraindications for modafinil treatment. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred twenty-one patients with stroke were screened and 41 patients included, 21 received modafinil. The primary end point, the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 general fatigue score, did not differ between groups. Patients in the modafinil group obtained better scores on the Fatigue Severity Scale (P=0.02) and in some subscales of the stroke-specific quality of life questionnaire (0.001<P<0.05), which were secondary outcomes. No serious adverse reactions were observed and there was no difference in blood pressure between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to the primary end point. There were secondary significant outcomes that should be explored in future trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01800097.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".