MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416921890 · doi:10.1161/svi270000_164

Abstract 164: Evaluation of Neuroprotective Agents In Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Undergoing Endovascular Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

2025· article· en· W4416921890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Humera Javed, Muzamil Akhtar, Samer AlMasri, Ayad Hamdan, Esha Tanveer, A. Z. Kaleem, Noureen Kashif, Fatima Hameed, Muhammad Yasin, Muhammad M. Qureshi, Humaira Afzal, Divya Nayar

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Adverse effectConfidence intervalMeta-analysisNeuroprotectionPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Neuroprotective agents have long been investigated as adjunctive therapies in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), yet clinical translation has been elusive. Agents such as Edaravone‐Dexborneol, uric acid, and NXY‐059 have shown promising biological effects in preclinical studies, but their aggregate impact on patient‐centered outcomes remains unclear. This meta‐analysis evaluates the functional, cognitive, and safety profiles of these agents compared to standard treatment in AIS patients undergoing endovascular treatment. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Edaravone‐Dexborneol, uric acid, or NXY‐059 in AIS patients undergoing endovascular treatment. The primary endpoint was a favorable 90‐day functional outcome (mRS ≤1). Secondary outcomes included changes in NIHSS, Barthel Index (BI), cognitive scores, mortality, and adverse events (AE). Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random‐effects models in R, expressed as odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with the I‐squared statistic, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Nine RCTs (n=7,903; mean age 67.7 years; 58.9% male) were included. Compared to controls, neuroprotectants were associated with higher odds of achieving favorable functional outcomes (mRS ≤1) at 90 days (OR = 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04–1.43) but with higher rates of infusion‐related (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.19–1.86) and treatment‐related (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.12–1.60) adverse events. Although severe AE leading to withdrawal were less frequent (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.56–0.91) in the treatment group. A small and statistically insignificant improvement was observed in both NIHSS at 14 days (MD –0.21; 95% CI –0.50 to 0.08) and BI. Cognitive outcome measured by Montreal Cognitive Assessment Score (MoCA) and mortality were not significantly different. Conclusions Pooled clinical data in AIS patients receiving endovascular treatment reveal that use of neuroprotective agents has a modest functional benefit but a consistent safety signal for increased treatment‐related adverse events. In conclusion, these findings challenge the role of currently available neuroprotectants in AIS and underscore the need for future trials targeting patient subgroups, optimizing dosing strategies, and prioritizing long‐term functional recovery. image

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.033
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207