Seizure prophylaxis following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (SPSAH): study protocol for a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial of short-term sodium valproate prophylaxis in patients with acute subarachnoid haemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Seizures are a common complication that leads to neurological deficits and affects outcomes after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH). However, whether to use prophylactic anticonvulsants in patients with aSAH remains controversial. Our study aims to determine whether short-term (7 days) sodium valproate could prevent seizure occurrence and improve neurological function in patients with SAH caused by anterior circulation aneurysm rupture and treated with clipping. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre randomised evaluator-blind placebo-controlled trial, 182 eligible patients with good-grade aSAH planned for surgical clipping will be enrolled from four neurosurgical centres in China. In addition to standard care, patients will be randomly assigned to receive sodium valproate 20 mg/kg daily or matching placebo. After aneurysmal clipping, patients will be followed up at discharge, 90 days and 180 days. The primary outcomes are the incidence of early and late seizures. The secondary outcomes include aSAH-related complications, sodium valproate-related adverse effects, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) (on discharge, at 90 days, 180 days), rate of good outcome (defined as mRS 0-2), all-cause death (at 90 days, 180 days) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (at 180 days). All analyses are by intention-to-treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted according to the principles of Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice guidelines. This trial involves human participants and has been approved by the ethics committee of West China Hospital. Informed consent will be achieved from each included patient and/or their legally authorised representative. Preliminary and final results from this study will be disseminated through manuscript publishing and international congresses presentations. Any protocol amendments will be approved by the ethics committee of West China Hospital and subsequently updated on ChiCTR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR.org identifier: ChiCTR2100050161.
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 | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.010 |
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".