Efficacy of Butylphthalide Injection in Conjunction with Citicoline Sodium in Treating Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To observe the clinical efficacy of butylphthalide injection in conjunction with citicoline sodium in treating ischemic stroke. From January 2022 to January 2023, our hospital admitted and randomly assigned 100 patients with acute ischemic stroke into two groups, control group and observation group. Each group consisted of 50 patients. Routine neurological treatment was administered to the control group, involving interventions such as fluid replacement, blood pressure control, lipid regulation, anticoagulation, correction of electrolyte imbalance, and intravenous infusion of butylphthalide injection. In addition to the standard treatment received by the control group, the observation group orally received citicoline sodium tablets. The assessment of therapeutic efficacy took place after duration of 2 w in both groups. Assessment of neurological injury repair was conducted using the national institutes of health stroke scale, while cognitive function recovery was evaluated through the implementation of the Montreal cognitive assessment scale. Utilizing computed tomography scan, cerebral blood volume and cerebral blood flow were quantified. The evaluation of activities of daily living was carried out employing the activities of daily living scale. Moreover, any adverse reactions occurring during the treatment period were duly documented. The occurrence of adverse reactions did not show a significant difference between the two groups, as reflected by a (p>0.05) that indicated no noteworthy disparity. When used in conjunction, butylphthalide injection and citicoline sodium exhibit a synergistic effect in treating ischemic stroke. This integrated treatment approach effectively promotes the repair of neurological injury and enhances cognitive function recovery. Furthermore, it improves cerebral blood flow perfusion and enhances daily life functionality, while maintaining a high level of safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".