MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911618584 · doi:10.1161/str.50.suppl_1.83

Abstract 83: Therapeutic Hypothermia in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke a Systematic Review of Prospective Controlled Studies

2019· review· en· W2911618584 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea M. Kuczynski, Sina Marzoughi, Abdulaziz S. Al Sultan, Mayank Goyal, Andrew M. Demchuk, Mohammed Almekhlafi

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)HypothermiaProspective cohort studyInternal medicineRelative riskMeta-analysisIschemic strokeConfidence intervalIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) is a potent neuroprotectant in stroke models. We investigated its effects in published studies of ischemic stroke patients. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized and non-randomized controlled studies published till July 2018. Full manuscripts reporting the type and outcomes of TH in acute ischemic stroke patients were included. We classified TH into systemic (body cooling) and selective (brain cooling). Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted the data. The main outcomes were neurological improvement (using the baseline to follow up NIHSS difference), complications, and mortality. Results: Of 2850 retrieved studies, 16 prospective controlled studies (813 patients) were included. Systemic TH was used in 13 studies (8 RCTs, 5 non-randomized parallel- controlled) while selective TH in 2 studies (1 RCT, 1 parallel- controlled), and one RCT used both types. Methods of cooling were highly variable and often multiple modalities were used. Median time from onset to TH start was 6 hours (IQR 7.5). Median target temperature was 33°C (range 32-35), which was reached within a median of 4 hours (IQR 3.7) in 9 systemic TH studies; while only one selective TH study reported the time to target temperature (17 minutes). Selective TH studies did not report enough outcomes to allow comparison with systemic TH. Outcomes are summarized in the forest plot and stratified by the study design (figure). Cardiac complications were higher in the TH vs controls (pooled relative risk “RR” 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9, p 0.001). The pooled estimates suggest non-significant higher risks of pneumonia (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.7, p 0.2) and death (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.6, p 0.5) with TH. Eight studies reported baseline and follow-up NIHSS. The standardized mean difference was comparable (p = 0.413). Conclusions: TH was associated with complications without improving recovery or mortality rates.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207