Preclinical systematic review of CCR5 antagonists as cerebroprotective and stroke recovery enhancing agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonists may improve both acute stroke outcome and long-term recovery. Despite their evaluation in ongoing clinical trials, gaps remain in the evidence supporting their use. With a panel of patients with lived experiences of stroke, we performed a systematic review of animal models of stroke that administered a CCR5 antagonist and assessed infarct size or behavioural outcomes. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase were searched. Article screening and data extraction were completed in duplicate. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool and alignment with the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) and Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) recommendations. Five studies representing 10 experiments were included. CCR5 antagonists reduced infarct volume (standard mean difference -1.02; 95% confidence interval -1.58 to -0.46) when compared to stroke-only controls. Varied timing of CCR5 administration (pre- or post-stroke induction) produced similar benefit. CCR5 antagonists significantly improved 11 of 16 behavioural outcomes reported. High risk of bias was present in all studies and critical knowledge gaps in the preclinical evidence were identified using STAIR/SRRR. CCR5 antagonists demonstrate promise; however, rigorously designed preclinical studies that better align with STAIR/SRRR recommendations and downstream clinical trials are warranted. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42023393438).
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".