Rationale and design of a randomized trial of early intensive blood pressure lowering on cerebral perfusion parameters in thrombolysed acute ischemic stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: Uncertainty persists over the optimal management of blood pressure (BP) in the early phase of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). This study aims to determine the safety and effects of intensive BP lowering on cerebral blood flow (CBF) and functional in AIS patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 54 thrombolysed AIS patients with a systolic BP of 160 to 180 mm Hg will be randomized to early intensive BP lowering (systolic target range 140-160 mm Hg) or guideline-based BP management (systolic range 160-180 mm Hg) during first 72-hours using primarily intravenous labetalol. We hypothesize that early intensive BP lowering will not reduce CBF by 20% and/or increase the volume of hypoperfused tissue by >20% on computed tomographic perfusion. Clinical outcome will be assessed using a dichotomized modified Rankin scale (scores 0-1 as excellent outcome vs scores 2-6 as dead or dependent) at 90 days. Other outcome would be symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03443596. CONCLUSION: This randomized study will provide important information about the physiological effects of BP reduction on cerebral perfusion after intravenous thrombolysis in AIS.
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 | 0.071 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".