New opportunities for neuroprotective therapy of patients in the acute and early recovery period of ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Brainmax in comparison with ethylmethylhydroxypyridine succinate and trimethylhydrazinium propionate in patients with ischemic stroke in the acute and early recovery period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open multicenter randomized study included 180 patients aged 1880 years (mean age 60.917.66 years, men 47.8%) with ischemic stroke in the acute and early recovery period (NIHSS from 3 to 15 points). Patients were randomized to receive Brainmax, ethylmethylhydroxypyridine succinate and trimethylhydrazinium propionate in an equal ratio (n=60). The drugs were administered intravenously for 10 days, followed by a transition to intramuscular injection for 14 days. Efficacy was assessed using the following scales: Modified Rankin Scale, NIHSS, Rivermead Mobility Index, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA). Safety assessment was carried out according to the presence and structure of adverse events. RESULTS: The mean Modified Rankin Scale score for Visits 3 (day 10) and 5 (day 25) for the group treated with Brainmax was 2.410.85 and 1.440.91 points, for the group EMHPS 2.870.68 and 2.180.85 points, and for the group receiving trimethylhydrazinium propionate 2.870.50 and 2.550.70 points respectively, which reflects the best functional outcome in the Brainmax group (p0.05). Comparison of cognitive function indicators also showed statistically significant differences between the groups of drugs Brainmax and ethylmethylhydroxypyridine succinate. Evaluation according to the MoCA test showed that the use of Brainmax is 20% more effective in restoring cognitive functions (compared to monodrugs). CONCLUSION: The present study confirms the superiority of combination therapy with Brainmax over monotherapy with each of the components.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".