A clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of oxiracetam in the treatment of patient with post-stroke cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of oxiracetam in the treatment of patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment. Methods In this randomized，double-blind trial，200 patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment were randomized 1∶1 to receive: oxiracetam 800 mg and 4 piracetam simulation tablets three times daily for 6 months，or piracetam 1600 mg and 2 oxiracetam simulation capsules，three times daily for 6 months.These clinical parameters were tested by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)，Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and Activity of Daily Living Scale (ADL) during a 6-month follow-up period. Results After 6 months of treatment，the MMSE score showed that the oxiracetam-intervention group’s score improved by a mean of 3.24 points，with a total effective rate of 91.6%，which was higher than that of the control group (2.30 points)，and the difference in point change between the 2 groups was statistically significant (t=2.079，P=0.039)，MoCA score showed that the oxiracetam-intervention group’s score improved by a mean of 5.82 points，which was higher than that of the control group (4.76 points).The ADL efficacy analysis showed that the oxiracetam-intervention group’s score decreased by a mean of 6.44 points，which was higher than that of the control group (4.39 points)，and the score ratio change differences between the 2 groups was not statistically significant (t=1.798，P=0.074;t=-1.914，P=0.057).The situation of patients’cognitive impairment got better along with the oxiracetam treatment for 1，2，4，6 months，so was the total effective rate (P<0.01). Conclusions This research proves that oxiracetam has definitely therapeutic effect on patient with post-stroke cognitive impairment.With the extension of treatment time，the situation of patients gets even better.MMSE score shows that oxiracetam has better effect on improving post-stroke cognitive impairment than piracetam，and oxiracetam does not show any serious adverse reactions.Oxiracetam has little adverse reactions and it shows impressive safety. Key words: Stroke; Pyrrolidines; Cognition disorders; Reproducibility of results
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".