MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997906501 · doi:10.4103/bc.bc_17_19

Cold blood perfusion for selective hypothermia in acute ischemic stroke

2019· review· en· W2997906501 on OpenAlexaff
T. K. Mattingly, StephenP Lownie

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Circulation · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypothermiaNeuroprotectionMedicineStroke (engine)AnesthesiaIschemiaIschemic strokePerfusionBrain ischemiaIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypothermia is the most reliably effective neuroprotectant, and yet systemic complications limit application. A large body of animal data suggests that hypothermia is effective for focal cerebral ischemia, namely acute ischemic stroke. In order to apply hypothermia effectively, a selective approach is required to maximize the effect on the brain while minimizing systemic side effects. Due to poor transferability of promising findings in rodent models to human clinical trials for neuroprotection, the focus of this review is large animal gyrencephalic models. Unlike rodent data which favor mild hypothermia, the majority of large animal studies on selective hypothermia support moderate-to-deep hypothermia (<30°C). Cold blood perfusion produces the rapid rate of temperature reduction and depth of hypothermia required to produce meaningful neuroprotection. Further studies of selective hypothermia in acute ischemic stroke require attention to duration and rate of cooling to optimize the neuroprotection offered by this technique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CirculationSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207