Randomized controlled study of edaravone injection in the treatment of patients with cognitive dysfunction after ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Edaravone Injection in the treatment of patients with cognitive dysfunction after ischemic stroke. Methods: A total of 180 patients with cognitive dysfunction after ischemic stroke who had attack within 72 h were selected and randomly divided into treatment group and control group,90 cases for each. Control group was treated with routine therapies,on which basis treatment group was added with intravenous injection of Edaravone Injection 30 mg. Mini-mental state examination( MMSE) and montreal cognitive assessment( Mo CA) 1 d,3 d,7 d,14 d,30 d and 90 d after hospitalization were compared between two groups,and clinical efficacy and safety were evaluated. Results: 1 d,3 d and 7 d after hospitalization,there was no significant difference between two groups in MMSE and Mo CA scores( P 0. 05). 14 d,30 d and 90 d after hospitalization,MMSE and Mo CA scores increased evidently in treatment group,and the differences were significant when compared with control group( P 0. 01). During treatment,there was no significant difference in the rate of adverse responses between two groups( P 0. 05). Conclusion: Edaravone Injection is safe and effective and can significantly improve the cognitive function of patients with cognitive dysfunction after ischemic stroke.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".