MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407589033 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1510284

Cerebrolysin as an adjuvant therapy after mechanical thrombectomy in large vessel occlusion cardioembolic stroke: a propensity score matching analysis

2025· article· en· W4407589033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Elbassiouny, Mohamed Shehata, Amr S. Zaki, Rady Y. Bedros, Ayman Hassan El-Sudany, Azza Abdel Nasser

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebrolysinMedicineModified Rankin ScalePropensity score matchingStroke (engine)Internal medicineAdverse effectInclusion and exclusion criteriaPhysical therapySurgeryIschemic strokeIschemiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Endovascular recanalization therapy has demonstrated considerable efficacy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, not all patients appear to benefit on the long term from this therapy. No studies have assessed the role of Cerebrolysin following mechanical thrombectomy (MT). The present study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Cerebrolysin as add-on treatment to MT in patients with cardioembolic AIS. Methods This study evaluated 150 patients admitted to the stroke unit. Data were prospectively collected from 75 patients with cardioembolic AIS and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥10, who underwent successful MT ± recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA). Patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were consecutively enrolled and treated with Cerebrolysin at a daily dose of 30 ml for 14 days, with treatment initiated within 8 h following MT. Patients were compared with a historical control group of 75 well-matched patients who underwent MT ± rt-PA but did not receive Cerebrolysin. The primary outcome measure was a favorable modified Rankin Scale (mRS = 0–2) at day 90. Secondary parameters included the NIHSS, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the rate of hemorrhagic transformation, mortality, and adverse events. Propensity score matching was performed to match the variables between the compared groups. Results and discussion The overall results demonstrated that patients treated with Cerebrolysin exhibited a significantly higher proportion of mRS scores of 0–2 at day 90 (64% vs. 34.7%) in comparison to the control group. This finding was consistent with lower NIHSS and mRS scores at all study visits, and a lower any hemorrhagic transformation rate (20% vs. 57.3%). Furthermore, the logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with favorable mRS scores were less likely to undergo hemorrhagic transformation (odds ratio = 2.75, 95% confidence interval = 1.17, 6.45; p = 0.002). The administration of Cerebrolysin as an add-on treatment resulted in a significant benefit for AIS patients following MT, characterized by an improvement in mRS and NIHSS scores, along with a reduced rate of hemorrhagic transformation. The administration of Cerebrolysin was safe and well tolerated. Further studies are required to confirm these results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207