Effects of alteplase and aspirin on functional outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke and mild non-disabling neurological deficit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigate the effect of Alteplase and Aspirin on the functional outcomes of patients with acute ischemic stroke with mild non-disabling neurological deficit. In this single-center, randomized controlled study, we selected 60 patients with acute ischemic stroke with mild non-disabling neurological deficit admitted to our hospital from January 2021 to January 2022, and randomly divided them into the study group (n = 30) and the control group (n = 30), the control group was given the Aspirin treatment, the study group was given the Alteplase treatment, and the changes in neurological recovery, daily living ability, exercise ability, balance ability, cognitive function, and short-term prognosis outcomes were observed in these 2 groups. The factors influencing the short-term outcome of Alteplase therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke were analyzed. The National Institutes of Health Neurological Deficit Score (NIHSS) scores at T1 and T2 of the study group were lower than those in the control group, but the scores of Barthel indicators (BI), Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment Scale (FMA), Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) of the study group were higher than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05). The short-term prognostic outcomes of these 2 groups were not significantly different (P > .05). The effect of the use of Alteplase or Aspirin on short-term functional outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke and mild non-disabling neurological deficit is not much different.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".