MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416896224 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2025.1716816

Post-stroke seizures in animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4416896224 on OpenAlexafffund
Kayla D. L. Csernyanszki, Nmazule K. Nyenke-Wofuru, Hazel Hwata, Ana C. Klahr

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsEpilepsyAnimal modelStroke (engine)Animal studiesRelevance (law)Human studiesPreclinical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Post-stroke seizures (PSS) are a common complication of stroke and can exacerbate neurological injury, yet their study in preclinical models remains limited. Understanding the relationship between PSS and outcomes in animal models is critical for improving translational research and informing therapeutic strategies. Objective To systematically review and meta-analyze the incidence, consequences, and methodological quality of studies investigating PSS in animal models of ischemic stroke (IS) and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science (June 2024, updated May 2025) identified original, peer-reviewed animal studies published after 1999 that reported seizures and outcomes (lesion volume, neurological deficit scores, behavior, edema, inflammation) without interventional treatments. Data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed for lesion volume. Results Of 6,005 studies screened, 10 met inclusion criteria, with eight eligible for meta-analysis. Seizure incidence ranged from 17.5–82% in focal ischemia and 45–67% in ICH models. Lesion volume was the most commonly measured outcome. Meta-analysis revealed that seizures were associated with larger lesion volumes in focal ischemia models (Hedge’s G = 1.598, p = 0.038) but not in ICH models (Hedge’s G = 0.180, p = 0.468). Across studies, seizures were linked to more severe neurological deficits in focal ischemia but showed no consistent effect in ICH. Risk-of-bias assessment indicated high risk in all studies, with frequent methodological limitations including lack of random outcome assessment, use of only young male animals, and absence of a priori sample size calculations. Publication bias was suggested by funnel plot asymmetry. Conclusion This review highlights a scarcity of rigorous preclinical studies on PSS, substantial heterogeneity across animal models, and methodological limitations that hinder translatability. Findings suggest a differential impact of stroke type on seizure outcomes, with focal ischemia-associated seizures linked to larger lesions and poorer neurological function. Future research should employ long-term, rigorously designed studies using diverse animal populations, standardized seizure monitoring, and careful reporting to enhance clinical relevance and guide therapeutic development.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.048
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207