MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413110291 · doi:10.1007/s40120-025-00810-1

Advances in Ischemic Stroke Treatment: Current and Future Therapies

2025· review· en· W4413110291 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Lo, Hitoshi Fukuda

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology and Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurorehabilitationStroke (engine)NeurologyCollateral circulationThrombolysisNeuroplasticityBlood pressureIntensive care medicineCardiologyCerebral blood flowInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPhysical therapyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review summarizes current concepts in our understanding of stroke anatomy, pathophysiology of cerebral hypoperfusion, and collateral circulation. It also provides an evidence-based update in stroke trials and treatments assessed using PRISMA guidelines. Intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular thrombectomy for anterior circulation strokes, blood pressure control after endovascular thrombectomy, and medical management principles are discussed. Endovascular thrombectomy and medical therapy improves functional independence at 90 days in anterior circulation strokes even in late windows up to 24 h post symptom onset regardless of infarct core size. Intensive systolic blood pressure control acutely post thrombectomy is associated with harm and worse outcomes. This review also provides an evidence-based update on neurorehabilitation strategies with emerging interventions such as brain-computer interface and robotics having the potential to maximize neuroplasticity for potential improvement and recovery post stroke.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology and TherapySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207