Treatment of patients with ishemic stroke in the vertebral-basilar system in acute period: experience of using the neuroprotective drug Mexidol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of Mexidol in patients in acute period of ishemic stroke in the vertebral-basilar system (iiVBS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An open randomized comparative study involved 52 patients. 32 of them received Mexidol (mail group, MG) and 20 received therapy without neuroprotective drugs. Assessment of the severity of clinical manifestations of iiVBS was performed using the Hoffenberth scale, stroke severity was assessed using the NIHSS, the modified Rankin Scale was used to assess the degree of disability in patients after stroke, neuropsychological examination of patients was performed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), dynamics were compared on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Subjective assessment scale for asthenia (MFI-20), the patients' quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D. RESULTS: The use of Mexidol in the form of long-term sequential therapy in the patients of the MG led to a 53.3% decrease in the severity of clinical manifestations of iiVBS and a 59.5% decrease in neurological deficit according to the NIHSS scale. By the end of Mexidol therapy, 96.9% of patients MG were able to manage their own affairs without assistance (modified Rankin Scale), which was accompanied by regression of emotional disturbances and improved quality of life of patients. CONCLUSION: Administration of Mexidol in therapy of patients with acute iiVBS can be considered the most justified, since it contributes to an earlier and more significant reduction of neurological deficit and improvement of patients' quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".