Ischemic Preconditioning Negatively Affects Thrombogenic Clotting Profile in Cerebral Small Vessel Occlusion Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The study evaluated the effect of an acute and a 2-week daily repetitive ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on conduit artery vascular function and thrombogenic clotting profile, in patients with a recent ischemic stroke. Methods: Fourteen patients, aged 71 ± 8 years, with a cerebral small vessel occlusion stroke were included in a randomized, controlled, open-label cross-over study. Treatment consisted of 2 weeks of daily IPC, four 5-min rounds of upper-arm occlusion, interspersed by 5 min rest periods. Control was without treatment. Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) was determined at baseline and after the control and treatment periods. Before and after each period, the patients underwent an acute bout of IPC. Blood samples were obtained for thrombogenic clotting profile at baseline and after the acute IPC bout, both before and after the control and treatment periods. Results: The period of daily IPC increased brachial artery diameter but did not influence FMD. Acutely, IPC was found to induce an increase in fractal dimension, indicating a denser clot microstructure, and a reduction in plasma levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1). There was no effect of daily IPC on the basal thrombogenic clotting profile, or on the change in clotting profile induced by acute IPC. Conclusions: Collectively, the data show that acute IPC leads to a prothrombotic clotting profile, despite antiplatelet therapy. Moreover, 2 weeks of daily treatment with IPC does not influence conduit artery vascular function or thrombogenicity in stroke patients.
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".