MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165886389 · doi:10.33263/briac101.864868

Can oxidative stress markers help define stroke prognosis?

2019· article· en· W3165886389 on OpenAlexaff
Mirella Veras

Bibliographic record

VenueBiointerface Research in Applied Chemistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsOxidative stressStroke (engine)Inclusion and exclusion criteriaMedicineDiseaseClinical trialInclusion (mineral)RehabilitationBiomarkerWeb of scienceBioinformaticsPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPathologyInternal medicineMeta-analysisPsychologyAlternative medicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify which oxidative stress markers can influence early stroke prognosis. Methodology: This is a systematic review carried out in two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, from November to December 2018. Two blinded, independent researchers probed the databases and gleaned descriptors indexed on both sites. “Markers”, “oxidative stress” AND “stroke” were the terms singled out for this study. The inclusion criteria were: the articles needed to have been published in English from 2013 to 2018, as well as include descriptors either in the title or in the abstract, and involve clinical trials with samples composed of stroke survivors. The exclusion criteria were: research involving animal experimentation; duplicate publications; articles without a clear methodology; articles that chiefly addressed any disease other than stroke, and those that were not available in full. Results: This review identified TBARS, catalase, nitric oxide (NO), Thiois, C-reactive protein and SOD as the most recurrent oxidative regulation markers in stroke survivors. These findings may direct new research toward obtaining early prognoses, and therefore enable more accurate decision-making. thus minimizing the costs and time related to the patient rehabilitation process.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiointerface Research in Applied ChemistrySame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207