ARTEMIDA Trial (A Randomized Trial of Efficacy, 12 Months International Double-Blind Actovegin)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose— Poststroke cognitive impairment is a debilitating consequence of stroke. The aim of this study was to assess whether Actovegin confers cognitive benefit in patients who have had an ischemic stroke. Methods— This was a 12-month, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients were ≥60 years of age with a Montreal Cognitive Assessment test score of ≤25 points. Patients were randomized into 2 groups within 1 week of acute supratentorial ischemic stroke in a 1:1 ratio: Actovegin (a deproteinized hemoderivative of calf blood, 2000 mg/d for ≤20 intravenous infusions followed by 1200 mg/d orally) or placebo for 6 months. Patients were treated in accordance with standard clinical practice for a further 6 months. The primary end point was the change from baseline in Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale, cognitive subscale, extended version at 6 months. Results— Two-hundred forty-eight patients were randomized to Actovegin and 255 patients to placebo. At month 6, the least squares mean change from baseline in Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale, cognitive subscale, extended version was −6.8 for Actovegin and −4.6 for placebo; the estimated treatment difference was −2.3 (95% confidence interval, −3.9, −0.7; P =0.005). Recurrent ischemic stroke was the most frequently reported serious adverse event, with a nonsignificantly higher number for Actovegin versus placebo. Conclusions— Actovegin had a beneficial effect on cognitive outcomes in patients with poststroke cognitive impairment. The safety experience was consistent with the known safety and tolerability profile of the drug. These results warrant confirmation in additional robustly designed studies. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01582854.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.009 | 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".