MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199203187 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.121.035002

Cilostazol for Secondary Stroke Prevention

2021· review· en· W3199203187 on OpenAlexaff
Adam de Havenon, Kevin N. Sheth, Tracy E. Madsen, Karen C. Johnston, Tanya N. Turan, Ḱazunori Toyoda, Jordan J. Elm, Joanna M. Wardlaw, S. Claiborne Johnston, Olajide Williams, Ashkan Shoamanesh, Maarten G. Lansberg

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeBritish Heart FoundationAlzheimer's SocietyNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsCilostazolMedicineStroke (engine)DiscontinuationClopidogrelClinical trialAdverse effectAspirinRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePlatelet aggregation inhibitorPopulationPlaceboAntiplatelet drugCardiologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cilostazol is a PDE3 (phosphodiesterase III) inhibitor with a long track record of safety that is Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approved for the treatment of claudication in patients with peripheral arterial disease. In addition, cilostazol has been approved for secondary stroke prevention in several Asian countries based on trials that have demonstrated a reduction in stroke recurrence among patients with noncardioembolic stroke. The onset of benefit appears after 60 to 90 days of treatment, which is consistent with cilostazol's pleiotropic effects on platelet aggregation, vascular remodeling, blood flow, and plasma lipids. Cilostazol appears safe and does not increase the risk of major bleeding when given alone or in combination with aspirin or clopidogrel. Adverse effects such as headache, gastrointestinal symptoms, and palpitations, however, contributed to a 6% increase in drug discontinuation among patients randomized to cilostazol in a large secondary stroke prevention trial (CSPS.com [Cilostazol Stroke Prevention Study for Antiplatelet Combination]). Due to limitations of prior trials, such as open-label design, premature trial termination, large loss to follow-up, lack of functional or cognitive outcome data, and exclusive enrollment in Asia, the existing trials have not led to a change in clinical practice or guidelines in Western countries. These limitations could be addressed by a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted in a broader population. If positive, it would increase the evidence in support of long-term treatment with cilostazol for secondary prevention in the millions of patients worldwide who have experienced a noncardioembolic ischemic stroke.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations77
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207