The Clinical Efficacy of Cerebrolysin in Ischemic Stroke Patients With Pre-Stroke Mild Cognitive Impairment : a Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Assessment of cognitive improvement after cerebrolysin treatment in ischemic stroke patients who suffered from mild cognitive impairment before stroke.Methods: This study had a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind design. Patients were randomized within 24 hours post-stroke to either intravenous placebo therapy (n=19) or cerebrolysin 40 ml per day (n=20) for 21 days. Both groups received standard stroke treatment and concomitant treatment for comorbid conditions. Endpoints were MoCA and ARAT scales evaluated three months after discharge. The statistical process was carried out by non-parametric methods with the software Statistica 13.0 (Dell Inc.) based on the LOCF population.Results: The total number of patients included was 39. The average NIHSS score at time of admission was 9.4uf0b10.2 points. Discharge time was 22.3uf0b10.3 days post stroke. At study endpoint patients in the Cerebrolysin group had improved in the MoCA from 23.8uf0b10.2 at baseline to 25.2uf0b10.1 compared to placebo patients who improved from 23.6uf0b10.2 at baseline to 24.1uf0b10.1, a significant group difference (p <0.001). In the ARAT, Cerebrolysin treated patients improved from 29.9uf0b10.2 at baseline to 39.6uf0b10.4 as compared to placebo patients who improved from 34.2uf0b10.7 to 38.6uf0b10.3 points, a significant group difference (p<0.05).Conclusion: Cerebrolysin has a beneficial effect on functional and cognitive performance of mildly cognitive impaired patients who suffered from ischemic stroke. Cerebrolysin was safe and well tolerated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".