Lithium Carbonate in a Poststroke Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Loss of gray matter after stroke has been associated with cognitive impairment. This pilot study aimed to investigate the therapeutic potential of lithium, a putative neurotrophic agent, in the stroke recovery process within a year of stroke occurrence. METHODS: Twelve stroke patients (mean ± SD age, 71.1 ± 11.9 years) were recruited to the study, and eligible participants were prescribed open-label lithium for 60 days. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess global gray matter at baseline and end of treatment; global cognition was assessed using the standardized Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and verbal memory was evaluated using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised. FINDINGS/RESULTS: There was no difference in global gray matter volume between baseline and follow-up (t = 1.977, P = 0.074). There was a significant interaction between higher lithium dose and increased global gray matter volume (F = 14.25, P = 0.004) and a correlation between higher lithium dose and improved verbal memory (r = 0.576, P = 0.05). IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Lithium pharmacotherapy may be associated with gray matter volume change and verbal memory improvement in stroke patients, providing a rationale for future trials assessing therapeutic potential of lithium in a poststroke population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".