Efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH) is the most serious complication of hypertension. Clearing intracranial hematoma as soon as possible, reducing brain cell edema, and controlling intracranial pressure could effectively reduce neuron damage, lower patient mortality, and improve patient prognosis. At present, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been widely used and plays an important role in the treatment of HICH. However, it is still in controversies about the choice of surgical treatment and medication treatment for HICH. Therefore, we try to conduct a randomized, controlled, prospective trial to observe the efficacy of MIS treatment against HICH compared with medication treatment. METHODS: Patients will be randomly divided into treatment group and control group in a 1:1 ratio using the random number generator in Microsoft Excel. Stereotactic soft channel minimally invasive intracranial hematoma puncture and drainage treatment and medication treatment will be applied respectively. The outcomes of intracerebral hemorrhage volume, Glasgow coma scale, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale will be recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the study will be helpful for the choice of MIS and conservative treatment when treating HICH patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/ME6Y5.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".