MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889183078 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.2338

Effect of Dextroamphetamine on Poststroke Motor Recovery

2018· article· en· W2889183078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Larry B. Goldstein, Laura Lennihan, Meheroz H. Rabadi, David C. Good, Michael Reding, Alexander W. Dromerick, Gregory P. Samsa, John Pura

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsStroke (engine)Physical therapyMedicinePlaceboDextroamphetamineRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialFunctional Independence MeasureBeck Depression InventoryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical trialModified Rankin ScalePsychologyInternal medicineIschemic strokePsychiatryAnxietyIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Data from animal models show that the administration of dextroamphetamine combined with task-relevant training facilitates recovery after focal brain injury. Results of clinical trials in patients with stroke have been inconsistent. Objectives: To collect data important for future studies evaluating the effect of dextroamphetamine combined with physiotherapy for improving poststroke motor recovery and to test the efficacy of the approach. Design, Setting, Participants: This pilot, double-blind, block-randomized clinical trial included patients with cortical or subcortical ischemic stroke and moderate or severe motor deficits from 5 rehabilitation hospitals or units. Participants were screened and enrolled from March 2001 through March 2003. The primary outcome was assessed 3 months after stroke. Study analysis was completed December 31, 2015. A total of 1665 potential participants were screened and 64 were randomized. Participants had to begin treatment 10 to 30 days after ischemic stroke. Data analysis was based on intention to treat. Interventions: Participants were allocated to a regimen of 10 mg of dextroamphetamine (n = 32) or placebo (n = 32) combined with a 1-hour physical therapy session beginning 1 hour after drug or placebo administration every 4 days for 6 sessions in addition to standard rehabilitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference between groups in change in Fugl-Meyer motor scores from baseline to 3 months after stroke (intention to treat with dextroamphetamine). Secondary exploratory measures included the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, Canadian Neurological Scale, Action Research Arm Test, modified Rankin Scale score, Functional Independence Measure, Ambulation Speed and Distance, Mini-Mental State Examination, Beck Depression Inventory, and Stroke Impact Scale. Results: Among the 64 patients randomized to dextroamphetamine vs placebo (55% men; median age, 66 years; age range, 27-91 years), no overall treatment-associated difference in the mean (SEM) change in Fugl-Meyer motor scores from baseline to 3 months after stroke was noted (-18.65 [2.27] points with dextroamphetamine vs -20.83 [2.94] points with placebo; P = .58). No overall treatment-associated differences in any of the study's secondary measures and no differences in subgroups based on stroke location or baseline severity were found. No adverse events were attributed to study treatments. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with dextroamphetamine combined with physical therapy did not improve recovery of motor function compared with placebo combined with physical therapy as assessed 3 months after hemispheric ischemic stroke. The studied treatment regimen was safe. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01905371.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA NeurologySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207