The efficacy and safety of salvianolic acids on acute cerebral infarction treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salvianolic acids (SA) has been widely used for the treatment of acute cerebral infarction (ACI) combined with basic western medicine therapy in China. This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SA on ACI treatment and its influence on neurological functions, activity of daily living, and cognitive functions. METHODS: We retrieved related articles from PubMed, the Cochrane Center Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE, Medline, Ovid, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Database without date and language restrictions. Finally, 58 randomized controlled trials were included from 239 retrieved records. Two researchers extracted the basic information and data from included articles and assessed the quality and analysis of data by using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: The administration of SA significantly increased the total clinical effective rate of ACI treatment (P < .001) and improved the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores, modified Rankin Scale scores, and Barthel Index scores after treatment and 3 months after ACI (P < .05). The activities of daily living scores in the SA group were significantly increased after treatment (P < .001), whereas they were remarkably decreased 3 months after ACI (P < .001) compared with that in the control group. Besides, SA profoundly promoted the recovery of Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (P < .001). However, the use of SA increased the risk of adverse events occurrence (P = .007). CONCLUSION: SA combined with basic western medicine treatment could promote neurological functions, daily living activities, and cognitive functions recovery of ACI patients. Although SA increased the risk of adverse events occurrence, these adverse events were easily controlled or disappeared spontaneously.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".