MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220915708 · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.844163

Revisiting Minocycline in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Mechanisms and Clinical Translation

2022· review· en· W4220915708 on OpenAlexaff
Ruiyi Zhang, V. Wee Yong, Mengzhou Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Immunology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMinocyclineMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageClinical trialNeuroprotectionIntensive care medicineStroke (engine)PharmacologyInternal medicineSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is an important subtype of stroke with an unsatisfactory prognosis of high mortality and disability. Although many pre-clinical studies and clinical trials have been performed in the past decades, effective therapy that meaningfully improve prognosis and outcomes of ICH patients is still lacking. An active area of research is towards alleviating secondary brain injury after ICH through neuroprotective pharmaceuticals and in which minocycline is a promising candidate. Here, we will first discuss new insights into the protective mechanisms of minocycline for ICH including reducing iron-related toxicity, maintenance of blood-brain barrier, and alleviating different types of cell death from preclinical data, then consider its shortcomings. Finally, we will review clinical trial perspectives for minocycline in ICH. We hope that this summary and discussion about updated information on minocycline as a viable treatment for ICH can facilitate further investigations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.366
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ImmunologySame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207