MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099353464

4 See Appendix for a listing of the members of the Cerebrolysin Study Group

2004· article· en· W7099353464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebrolysinNeuroprotectionStroke (engine)PlaceboAdverse effectConcomitantClinical trialPentoxifylline
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary. Background and purpose. Cerebrolysin is a compound with neuro-trophic and neuroprotective activity. It is produced by enzymatic breakdown of purified brain proteins and consists of low molecular weight peptides and amino acids. Cellular and animal models of cerebral ischaemia have shown that it is a potent neuroprotective agent. We explored the safety and preliminary outcome of Cerebrolysin treatment in patients with acute stroke. Methods. Randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial. Patients with acute stroke were random-ised within 24 h of stroke onset to IV therapy with placebo or Cerebrolysin 50 mL=day for 21 days. Both groups received concomitant treatment with ASA 250 mg=day PO and pentoxifylline 300 mg=day IV. Clinical examinations were performed on days 1, 3, 7, 21 and 90 post baseline. Outcome measures were the Canadian Neurological Scale, the Barthel Index, the Clinical Global Impres-sions, the Mini-Mental State Examination, and the Syndrome Short Test. Treat-ment emergent adverse events, lab tests, and vital signs were recorded to assess the safety of Cerebrolysin. Results. 146 patients were enrolled in two groups: 78

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207