MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2886623109

Proinflammatory Cytokines and Early Neurological Worsening in Ischemic Stroke

2000· article· en· W2886623109 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
NicolásVila, JoséCastillo, AntonioDávalos, ÁngelChamorro

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProinflammatory cytokineStroke (engine)Cerebrospinal fluidIschemiaTumor necrosis factor alphaIschemic strokeInflammationBrain ischemiaInternal medicineCerebral infarctionInterleukin 6AnesthesiaGastroenterology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose—The mechanisms for clinical deterioration in patients with ischemic stroke are not completely understood. Several proinflammatory cytokines are released early after the onset of brain ischemia, but it is unknown whether inflammation predisposes to neurological deterioration. We assessed the implication of interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in early neurological worsening in ischemic stroke. Methods—Two hundred thirty-one patients consecutively admitted with first-ever ischemic cerebral infarction within the first 24 hours from onset were included. Neurological worsening was defined when the Canadian Stroke Scale (CSS) score fell at least 1 point during the first 48 hours after admission. IL-6 and TNF-α were determined in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF; n=81) obtained on admission. Results—Eighty-three patients (35.9%) deteriorated within the first 48 hours. IL-6 in plasma (>21.5 pg/mL; OR 37.7, CI 11.9 to 118.8) or in CSF (>6.3 pg/mL; OR 13.1, CI 2.2 to 77.3) ...

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→