The Effects of Glibenclamide on Cognitive Performance, Quality of Life, and Emotional Aspects Among Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is associated with a high incidence of long-term cognitive impairment, decreased quality of life (QoL), and psychiatric disorders. The effects of glibenclamide on such outcomes in the setting of aSAH are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of glibenclamide in patients with aSAH on cognitive performance, QoL, and emotional aspects. METHODS: Patients identified with aSAH were randomly allocated to receive 5 mg of glibenclamide for 21 days or placebo, starting within 96 hours of the ictus. After 6 months, patients were evaluated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (cognitive performance), Medical Outcomes Short-form Health Survey (QoL), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Screen for Post-traumatic Stress Symptoms (emotional aspects). RESULTS: The mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 22.5 ± 6.2. No statistically significant difference was found between groups, with a mean score of 21.7 ± 6.4 in the Glibenclamide group and 23.4 ± 6.2 in the placebo group (P = 0.392). A score <23 was observed in 16 patients (35.6%) and its frequency was similar between groups (P = 0.900). The most frequently impaired domains were Attention (N = 21/45; 46.7%) and Visuospatial (18/45; 40.0%). Impairment of each domain was similar between groups (P > 0.05). In each domain, the mean score was similar between groups (P > 0.05). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores did not differ between groups (P > 0.05). The mean Screen for Post-traumatic Stress Symptoms score as well as the mean scores of its domains were similar between groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Glibenclamide did not improve cognitive performance, QoL, and emotional aspects after 6 months of follow-up of aSAH survivors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".