MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2439673132 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.39

Neuroprotection of Early Locomotor Exercise Poststroke: Evidence From Animal Studies

2015· review· en· W2439673132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pengyue Zhang, Yang Hongbo, Jichuan Zhang, Ce Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKunming University of Science and Technology
KeywordsStroke (engine)NeuroprotectionMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnimal studiesNeuroscienceLocomotor activityPhysical therapyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early locomotor exercise after stroke has attracted a great deal of attention in clinical and animal research in recent years. A series of animal studies showed that early locomotor exercise poststroke could protect against ischemic brain injury and improve functional outcomes through the promotion of angiogenesis, inhibition of acute inflammatory response and neuron apoptosis, and protection of the blood-brain barrier. However, to date, the clinical application of early locomotor exercise poststroke was limited because some clinicians have little confidence in its effectiveness. Here we review the current progress of early locomotor exercise poststroke in animal models. We hope that a comprehensive awareness of the early locomotor exercise poststroke may help to implement early locomotor exercise more appropriately in treatment for 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 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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207