Evaluation of Volume Expansion Therapeutic Effect in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Volume expansion therapy is widely used in clinical practice, whether expansion therapy has a certain effect on the recovery of neurological function in patients with ischemic stroke is very worth exploring. Our aim is to explore the value of dextran injection in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods: A total of 101 patients with cerebral infarction were divided into two groups: the expansion group and the control group. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores were assessed at the time of admission and discharge. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in neurological function improvement between the treatment group and the control group (P > 0.05). Moreover, some factors including age, sex, NIHSS baseline score, systolic blood pressure before treatment, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, degree of cerebral arterial stenosis and option of treatment method have no statistically significant contribution to the patients (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Dextran injection may not improve the degree of neurological deficit in acute ischemic stroke patients. J Neurol Res. 2019;9(3):23-27 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr540
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".