Bibliographic record
Abstract
：Objective To investigatethe duration of glutamate increase in patients with stable and progressing ischaemicstrokeand determine the time window for treatment with inhibitors of glutamate release orglutamate receptor antagonists.Methods A total of 128 patients with acute cerebralinfarction admitted consecutively between September 1996 andDecember 2001 were involved inthe study. Glutamate concentrations in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) wereanalyzedby high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in patients and control subjects.At the same time, Canadian StrokeScale (CSS) score and cerebral infarction volume (CTV)were also tested. Results Mean glutamate concentrations in plasma(P＜0.01) and CSF (P＜0.001) of the patients were significantly higher than incontrols. Mean glutamate concentrations inplasma and CSF in 50 patients with progressingischaemic stroke were significantly higher (P＜0.01) than in 78 patients withstable ischaemic stroke.Mean glutamate concentrations in plasma and CSF in patients with CTV ≥10 cm3 were significantlyhigher (P＜0.05) than in those with CTV＜10 cm3, and glutamateconcentrations in CSF of 50 patients with progressingischaemic stroke evidently correlatedwith the CTV values (r= 0.303, P＜ 0.05). Conclusion Our findings suggest that a widewindow ofpreventing neurological deterioration in patients with acute ischaemic stroke exists withthe use of glutamateantagonists. The CSF glutamate content may serve as an index to judgethe progression of ischaemic brain injury and use ofglutamate release inhibitors. Key words: cerebral infarction; glutamate; therapeutic window; ischaemic braininjury
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".